Consciousness and the illusion of choice

[DrmDoc]

Just because one commits suicide doesn't mean they didn't reduce. What happens to an individual life after it already passed along its DNA for future generation isn't nearly important to evolution as the passing DNA along part is.

 

I find myself arguing the survival benefits of suicide, which was not my intent and will no longer attempt to do. However, there's a general perception, not mine, of the suicidal as not having the fortitude to live on--there are some who could argue a societal benefit to that, but I will not.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

OK, I see your point. You feel first and react and then comes the rationalization.

 

So I suppose the survival benefit, is to find, or think you found yourself to have made the correct decision, and therefore feel good about your decision, even though, by someone else's calculus, the decision was a bad one.

 

Oh well, (for instance) the Yanks lost last year, but I am still a fan, and that is a good decision on my part, because THIS year, they will win the pennant.

 

Or maybe with the Trump thing, Hillary supporters, having backed the wrong horse, figure the only way to win, is to double down and resist and hope for a house and senate switch to Dem in 2018.

 

But it is, as you say, an after the fact rationalization, to find some way to figure a win, to get the dopamine. To feel "right". To feel victorious, and on top of the world.

 

Thing is, and what is important to always consider in life, is does your victory require someone else's defeat?

 

Will you for instance only feel right, if Trump is proven a Russian spy? Or can you instead realize that more people, Americans, voted for Stein, and Trump and Johnson and Castle and McMullin and La Riva and de la Fuente and Soltysik and Kennedy than voted for Hillary. And millions more stayed home because there was no great candidate to be had this cycle, and millions more Americans, and people that reside in the U.S. and believe in the American way of life did not vote because they were under age, or felons, or not citizens.

 

If you for instance decided to support Sanders, and he lost the primary and Hillary won the election, would Hillary be "not your president" and worthy of your distain, and would you resist her every move, until the Socialist Party won power?

 

Or can everyone perhaps rationalize a win, and figure that 63 million adult, rational, good people voted for our current president, who actually really won the electoral college, and is our actual president, with all the power the office carries, and the 66 million that voted for Hillary and the 8 million that voted for other, and the 12 million that stayed home, are all Americans and all have a president that wants to see them safe, and secure, and employed and in good health, and we all need to work together to make that happen. Now, this year. Waiting for a maybe power change in 2018 is sort of dumb (survival-wise).

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 7, 2017 by tar

[nec209]

 

The choice to buy the next hit of a narcotic doesn't have survival value. Our currunt opioid crisis is an example of people making choices which make them feel good yet do not help them survive. I see no link between feeling good about a choice and that choice being useful to survival

 

 

 

Well science still cannot explain why some people are more prone to drug use than other people. Is it bad crowd they hang out with that turn them to drugs and they try it and do it because the exposure stem to it ? It is body chemically they crave it but never tried drugs.

 

The nature vs nurture what cause people to try drugs for the first time. They grow up in home or neighborhood where drugs are culture norm and the person is more tempted to try it because so many people re doing it . Than other family where home and neighborhood where drugs not there and hardly no one if anyone do drugs.

 

Or nature the person body chemically they crave it but never tried drugs.

 

Or people just make bad choice and weak and make wrong choice and nature vs nurture don't play apart why person did drugs.

[Ten oz]

@ tar, right vs wrong choices has nothingto do with what I am saying. I am strictly considering whether the choice is made consciously or unconsciously. That is it. Do we consciously make all the decisions we believe we do our to some extent large or small is it just an illusion of choice. I used the way you voted not because I agree or disagree with it. I used it because the choice was contradictory to what you had said you'd do.Whether the choice was ultimately wrong or right is completely irrelevant.

 

How is the mechanism working? Are using our reasoning skills to determine a courses of actions or has the decision already been made. The analogy I used earlier:

"A parent plans out a family vacation to Disney. They schedule time off work and purchase a family package. The trip is 100% set. Then they tell their children that if they keep their rooms clean for a month they will reward them with a trip to Disney. In reality the trip to Disney is already a done deal. The offer to the kids is just a manipulation. The parents are presenting the kids a choice yet in truth no choice really exists. Yet it accomplishes a few different things:it gets the kids to buy into cleaning their rooms, makes the kids think they can earn things through good behavior, the satifaction of believing they earned the trip probably makes the trip more enjoyable, and etc, etc, etc.:"

 

In that analogy there is a lot of room for people feeling like they are making independent choices. The children may go bacck and forth in their heads about whether or not they will actually clean their rooms. Each kid may have a different standard in mind for what a clean room looks like. Perhaps the most stubburn child may even give the parent loads of attitude about it. Ultimately the outcome is basically set in stone barring something unforseen. The family going to Disney will be the outcome regardless of the all the mental masterbation. The bar for what a clean room is will adjust as needed.

 

In that analogy the children believe they can influence an outcome with their choices. They are told as much by their parents. It isn't true though. The parents have already purchased the Disney trip. Decisions have already been made. The children just aren't aware of that. The children cannot control the outcome. They just think they can.

[dimreepr]

If the children refused completely, then they've decided to risk the outcome despite their desire to go.

[Ten oz]

 

I find myself arguing the survival benefits of suicide, which was not my intent and will no longer attempt to do. However, there's a general perception, not mine, of the suicidal as not having the fortitude to live on--there are some who could argue a societal benefit to that, but I will not.

I am not see the survival benefit as important. It might be. I just am not seeing it. Sometimes the difference between a species going extinct vs continuing is random luck. A species can be perfectly adapted for survival in their enviroment and then a meteor can come along and ....BOOM......that species is no longer perfectly adapted. Good and bad fortune plays a role just as the survival benefit of an adaptation does. I do think everything a species does can be traced back to a survival benefit. Many thinks can but not all things. I think if we understood the relationship between the the 2 (conscious and unconscious/subconscious) I think it might be easy to determine a survival benefit. Right now, for me, I am still pondering which is in the drivers seats or if they take turns.

 

I think there is a sense or feeling that if our conscious isn't making decisions that somehow it means we aren't in control. I don't see it that way. Whether the decision is made by my sunconscious or conscious it is still made by me. My subconscious is still me. It is still my brain in my body.

If the children refused completely, then they've decided to risk the outcome despite their desire to go.

 

 

The bar for what a clean room is will adjust as needed.

[dimreepr]

What if the parents decide to cancel the trip as punishment?

[Ten oz]

What if the parents decide to cancel the trip as punishment?

In that scenario the kids still aren't determining the outcome the parents are. In the analogy the parents are the subconscious and the kids are the conscious. Additionally I think most would agree that any parent who would purchase the trip, take time off work, just to then cancel out of anger towards their kids is a little nuts. In that example you are asking what if ones subconscious has a mental disorder and all decisions are tenuous.

[goldglow]

I think if we understood the relationship between the the 2 (conscious and unconscious/subconscious) I think it might be easy to determine a survival benefit. Right now, for me, I am still pondering which is in the drivers seats or if they take turns.

 

 

 

 

 

Does it help to think of the unconscious as being " long-term memory ", and the conscious as being " short-term memory " ? Or, to use a computing analogy: the unconscious is the hard-drive and the conscious is the RAM. This would make it a symbiotic, interdependent relationship between two equal partners, each reliant on the other, so that neither is permanently in the " driver's seat ". As you say : they "... take turns ". In other words, then, you couldn't have one without the other.

Edited May 8, 2017 by goldglow

[iNow]

They're not equal partners, though, nor are they bifurcated like computers.

[Ten oz]

 

Does it help to think of the unconscious as being " long-term memory ", and the conscious as being " short-term memory " ? Or, to use a computing analogy: the unconscious is the hard-drive and the conscious is the RAM. This would make it a symbiotic, interdependent relationship between two equal partners, each reliant on the other, so that neither is permanently in the " driver's seat ". As you say : they "... take turns ". In other words, then, you couldn't have one without the other.

This is the way I viewed it for a long time. However as time has passed I have come to believe both have their own motivations or at least the illusion of motivations. The relationship isn't as linear or immediately useful as computing memory. People are often torn between choices in life. Torn between allegiances. Even simply choices that do not impact anyone else. Choices like what tie to wear, what to eat for lunch, or etc. Meanwhile what we want is almost always immediately known to us.

[goldglow]

People are often torn between choices in life. Torn between allegiances. Even simply choices that do not impact anyone else. Choices like what tie to wear, what to eat for lunch, or etc. Meanwhile what we want is almost always immediately known to us.

 

Yes, that has the ring of truth to it. Sometimes, too, we say " i was given no choice in the matter " or " i had no choice in the matter " , but can that also be said to be true ? It seems to me now, perhaps incorrectly, that everything so far has led to an impasse: we will have to make choices/decisions throughout our lives, consciously or unconsciously, whether we want to or not, so there is no way of avoiding them, and all we can do is try to do the right thing each time, if at all possible, when the stakes are high. Unfortunately, many of our choices will be the wrong choice, whether coming from the conscious or unconscious, and it seems there is very little we can do to refine our decision-making. Will we just have to live this state of affairs or is there a way out? Sorry to sound so bleak - the Sun will keep on shining!

Edited May 8, 2017 by goldglow

[Ten oz]

 

Yes, that has the ring of truth to it. Sometimes, too, we say " i was given no choice in the matter " or " i had no choice in the matter " , but can that also be said to be true ? It seems to me now, perhaps incorrectly, that everything so far has led to an impasse: we will have to make choices/decisions throughout our lives, consciously or unconsciously, whether we want to or not, so there is no way of avoiding them, and all we can do is try to do the right thing each time, if at all possible, when the stakes are high. Unfortunately, many of our choices will be the wrong choice, whether coming from the conscious or unconscious, and it seems there is very little we can do to refine our decision-making. Will we just have to live this state of affairs or is there a way out? Sorry to sound so bleak - the Sun will keep on shining!

I think attempting to rate choices as wrong or right only muddles this conversation down. With regard to how the brain works and what the relationship between our consciousn and unconscious right vs wrong doesn't matter. What is right and what is wrong is all relative. Happiness and sorrow is all relative. There are depressed successful people and happy unsuccessful people. Regretful wealthy people and content poor people. Murderers who feel justified and victims who feel guilty. What consitutes a right choices for ones conscious and/or subconscious (rhetorical question)?

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Freud studied the brain, and had a model of the subconscious that mirrors this discussion, and also aligns with the actual neurobiology of a chemical reward system, and the actual areas of the brain that have been found responsible for us to put ourselves in other people's shoes. This area of the brain, which develops at around 3 or 4 years old, was talked about a lot in iNow's thread, years back, on how Religion hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain. This area is responsible for moral decisions, as well as for allowing us to converse with unseen others.

 

Freud's model of our consciousness was that of an id, and ego and a super ego.

 

The id, was our animal desires, for sex and food and such, the superego, was our societal rules,(like the area of the brain talked about in iNow's thread,) and the ego was the moderator, between. The conscious mind, or the rational mind, puts what you want to do, up against what you ought to do, and decides the proper course of action.

 

So, to attempt to answer your question, some things are already decided. You don't have sex with your sibling and such. Already know what to do or not do, in many situations, because you were taught, by your parents, or the Bible, or the laws of your club, or town or country. So maybe not so much choice but to either go with, or against the desires, or the rules. But still, even in this model, the ego is the moderator, and makes the decision, after balancing the costs and benefits, and formulating a plan, which is then brought into reality by taking a particular action, or blocking a particular action.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 8, 2017 by tar

[DrmDoc]

I am not see the survival benefit as important. It might be. I just am not seeing it. Sometimes the difference between a species going extinct vs continuing is random luck. A species can be perfectly adapted for survival in their enviroment and then a meteor can come along and ....BOOM......that species is no longer perfectly adapted. Good and bad fortune plays a role just as the survival benefit of an adaptation does. I do think everything a species does can be traced back to a survival benefit. Many thinks can but not all things. I think if we understood the relationship between the the 2 (conscious and unconscious/subconscious) I think it might be easy to determine a survival benefit. Right now, for me, I am still pondering which is in the drivers seats or if they take turns.

 

I think there is a sense or feeling that if our conscious isn't making decisions that somehow it means we aren't in control. I don't see it that way. Whether the decision is made by my sunconscious or conscious it is still made by me. My subconscious is still me. It is still my brain in my body.

 

 

I disagree, even adaptations that appear to have no current survival benefit (e.g., tonsils, wisdom teeth, etc.) persist because they were important to survival at some prior evolutional point. The introduction of new survival affecting influences (e.g., meteor strike) merely provide an environment that favors the most survival adapted species. Newly acquired adaptations can persist long after the need for those adaptations has vanished. As I understand the evolutional nature of consciousness, the distinction in conscious versus unconscious is analogous to proactive versus reactive.

 

Conscious and unconscious are the only legitimate states of mentation our brain function produces. Subconscious, as a mental state, simply does not exist. Our unconscious mind emerges from our brain's most primitive functional state, which is instinctual and reactive. The behaviors we engage innately, instinctively, and without thought emerges from our unconscious. Conversely, the behaviors we engage thoughtfully with proactive, conscious consideration of outcome emerges from a function state produced by our brain's most recent evolutional developments. These two states are co-dependent with our conscious more dependent or subservient to our unconscious. This is a perspective supported by the functional distinctions of the brain structures from which our proactive and reactive behaviors are believed to emerge. We cannot be conscious without the functional support of those brain structures that produce our unconscious behaviors; therefore, we are both conscious and unconscious in consideration of the conscious choices we make.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

Freud studied the brain, and had a model of the subconscious that mirrors this discussion, and also aligns with the actual neurobiology of a chemical reward system, and the actual areas of the brain that have been found responsible for us to put ourselves in other people's shoes. This area of the brain, which develops at around 3 or 4 years old, was talked about a lot in iNow's thread, years back, on how Religion hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain. This area is responsible for moral decisions, as well as for allowing us to converse with unseen others.

 

Freud's model of our consciousness was that of an id, and ego and a super ego.

 

The id, was our animal desires, for sex and food and such, the superego, was our societal rules,(like the area of the brain talked about in iNow's thread,) and the ego was the moderator, between. The conscious mind, or the rational mind, puts what you want to do, up against what you ought to do, and decides the proper course of action.

 

So, to attempt to answer your question, some things are already decided. You don't have sex with your sibling and such. Already know what to do or not do, in many situations, because you were taught, by your parents, or the Bible, or the laws of your club, or town or country. So maybe not so much choice but to either go with, or against the desires, or the rules. But still, even in this model, the ego is the moderator, and makes the decision, after balancing the costs and benefits, and formulating a plan, which is then brought into reality by taking a particular action, or blocking a particular action.

 

Regards, TAR

by Scharnberg (1993), Esterson (1993), Wilcocks (1994), Dawes (1994), Webster (1995), and Erwin (1996) attest, independent studies have begun to converge toward a verdict that was once considered a sign of extremism or even of neurosis that there is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00331.x

 

No neuroscientist today would say that the unconscious does not exist, nor would he or she say that we do not have implicit memories (memories outside of consciousness.) No one working in the field would argue against primal emotional drives in human beings either. The question is: Does new research suggest a psyche that resembles Freud’s model or not? Some say yes, and others say no. The debates are intense, often heated. Freud remains controversial. What is certain is that at least among some neurobiologists, Freud is no longer dismissed as quickly as he once was. A new field, neuropsychoanalysis, has been born to try and bring the two disciplines together and fulfill one of Freud’s dreams: to ground the psychological in the biological. In 1895, Freud started writing his Project for a Scientific Psychology, a theory of the mind that he rooted in neuronal activity. He never finished it because he realized that not enough was known about brain functions to make such a theory possible, but he hoped the day would come in the future.

I will cite a single example of the renewed interest in Freud’s theories, an article published in Brain Research Reviews (2004) by a group of Italian neuroscientists, Diego Cantonze, Alberto Siracusano, Paolo Calabresi, and Giorgio Bernardi, which returns to ideas Freud outlined in his Project: “The Project for a Scientific Psychology (1895): a Fruedian Anticipation of LTP-memory connection theory.” LTP stands for “long term potentiation” of synaptic transmissions in the brain related to learning and memory. In the Project Freud maintained that memory was represented in the brain at a cellular, synaptic level as “a permanent alteration following an event,” an early prediction of the properties of LTP. But aside from the abandoned Project, throughout his work, Freud believed that memories were not fixed but reconstructed in the present, something widely believed to be true among memory researchers today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-minds-method-or-muddle/201003/who-s-afraid-sigmund-freud

 

There are things I think Frued got right. Obviously his contribution to psychology cannot be denied. I specifically think he views regarding memories being realtime reconstructions was brillant. That said I am not a fan of his model for the id, ego, and super ego. I think Frued didn't separate the cause for behaviour from the mechanisms of the brain well. I see social norms and morals as a chicken or the egg conversation. There are many behaviors and functions of the mind which developed hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some of those determine our social norms. They aren't continiously learned, taught to us by our parents, but rather behaviors associated with being human. Not all things but many things. Just as a puppy raise by humans from birth still grows up to behave like a dog I think humans all grow up and behave like humans. The differences between culture and parenting being considerably more nuanced than we care to admit. While we consider thou shall not kill to be a cultural virtue humans kill humans for all the same sorts of reasons other mamals kill members of their own species. Primary due to competition for resources. Attributing the notion of morality or ethics to our behavior(s) isn't useful in my opinion as those are merely human concepts and not real things. Unless you believe the human mind evolved to service human concepts and not vice versa?

 

I disagree, even adaptations that appear to have no current survival benefit (e.g., tonsils, wisdom teeth, etc.) persist because they were important to survival at some prior evolutional point. The introduction of new survival affecting influences (e.g., meteor strike) merely provide an environment that favors the most survival adapted species. Newly acquired adaptations can persist long after the need for those adaptations has vanished. As I understand the evolutional nature of consciousness, the distinction in conscious versus unconscious is analogous to proactive versus reactive.

 

Conscious and unconscious are the only legitimate states of mentation our brain function produces. Subconscious, as a mental state, simply does not exist. Our unconscious mind emerges from our brain's most primitive functional state, which is instinctual and reactive. The behaviors we engage innately, instinctively, and without thought emerges from our unconscious. Conversely, the behaviors we engage thoughtfully with proactive, conscious consideration of outcome emerges from a function state produced by our brain's most recent evolutional developments. These two states are co-dependent with our conscious more dependent or subservient to our unconscious. This is a perspective supported by the functional distinctions of the brain structures from which our proactive and reactive behaviors are believed to emerge. We cannot be conscious without the functional support of those brain structures that produce our unconscious behaviors; therefore, we are both conscious and unconscious in consideration of the conscious choices we make.

We are completely talking past each other regarding evolution. I don't disagree with anything you posted here and don't see it as a counter response to what I posted. It doesn't matter.

 

I don't think I agree that the unconscious mind is "primitive". If you merely mean primitive as relating to it being a functions on thebrain which predates our conscious mind than sure, yes. However you described it as instinctual and without thought, I disagree. It may think. It may have opinions. Everything may not be purely instinctual. Just because we aren't consciously aware of its thought process doesn't mean it doesn't have one. I have had many complicated ideas and solutions to techincal problems suddenly appear in my mind fully formed. I think we all have. Fully flushed out ideas come from somewhere. They aren't instinct. I have also be surprised by my emotional response to things. I have been far more impacted and far less impacted by things that I thought I would be implying various unconscious feelings beyond my conscious radar.

 

I think our unconscious minds are sophisticated but because we realize ourselves through our conscious there's a bias towards assuming our conscious is the source of our mental intangibles.

[DrmDoc]

We are completely talking past each other regarding evolution. I don't disagree with anything you posted here and don't see it as a counter response to what I posted. It doesn't matter.

 

I don't think I agree that the unconscious mind is "primitive". If you merely mean primitive as relating to it being a functions on thebrain which predates our conscious mind than sure, yes. However you described it as instinctual and without thought, I disagree. It may think. It may have opinions. Everything may not be purely instinctual. Just because we aren't consciously aware of its thought process doesn't mean it doesn't have one. I have had many complicated ideas and solutions to techincal problems suddenly appear in my mind fully formed. I think we all have. Fully flushed out ideas come from somewhere. They aren't instinct. I have also be surprised by my emotional response to things. I have been far more impacted and far less impacted by things that I thought I would be implying various unconscious feelings beyond my conscious radar.

 

I think our unconscious minds are sophisticated but because we realize ourselves through our conscious there's a bias towards assuming our conscious is the source of our mental intangibles.

 

In retrospect, I see we do have some agreement on survival traits. However, we defer slightly on the nature of the unconscious and I think that's because of a likely distinction in the basis for our views. My views are based on a perspective of how mind and aspects of consciousness likely evolved as suggested by our brain's primitive-to-contemporary functional developments. Those developments suggest that instinctual aspects of our behavior arose from elements in brain structure that evolved prior to the cortical developments that produce conscious thought. The parts of our brain that mediate our unconscious behaviors are reactive and do not engage thought as we might consciously do. What we might perceive as fully formed ideas from our unconscious may merely be our conscious interpretation of an unconscious reaction to an accumulation of sensory stimuli and information we have perceived and experienced. It's not our unconscious that produces those ideas, its our conscious recognition and interpretation of our unconscious perceptions and reactions that produce those ideas. Our conscious perception or awareness of having an idea is evident of that idea's conscious nature and origin.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

My dad, the one in my profile picture was, or maybe could still be considered, a Freudian psychologist.

 

I am not.

 

However, the efficacy of psychoanalysis vs psychiatric care I think should still be a concern of the mental health care field. I am not so sure we are smart enough yet to mess with the neurotransmitters in the brain and not mess with consciousness itself. That is, I am not so sure you can treat a chemical addiction, like a heroin addiction, with other chemicals that wedge themselves into the evolutionarily developed, pleasure/reward system. Too complex, and too much or too little of the particular uptake inhibitor or whatever chemical approach is being taken, results sometimes in unintended psychosis or suicidal thoughts, or dependency on the drug that was supposed to get you independent of a chemical dependency.

 

Much more direct, and simple to just do it right, and feel good about it. We have the feel good chemicals built right in.

 

But on the morals not having anything to do with consciousness, I have to disagree. We are conscious of each other, and what others think, and how they react to us, love us, or hate us, and whether they support us, or turn their backs on us, has everything to do with survival. And everything to do with happiness. The whole reason we are conscious is to have a model of the world put together in our brains, that we can navigate and test for the purposes of navigation and effecting the waking world, to our survival benefit. To find water and food and heat and shelter and clothes (and mates, and to identify and neutralize threats and such.) And our universities allow us to benefit from the tests and trials of others down through the ages, and our churches or parents or schools pass down the morays, and principles of human interaction, that work.

 

So one is not conscious of only one's belly button, and whether they themselves are hungry or not. We have mirror neurons where we flinch when the guy on tv is about to get hit. Our consciousness includes the desires of others. What their hopes and dreams are, what they are going to have for supper, is part of our consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 8, 2017 by tar

[goldglow]

There are things I think Frued got right. Obviously his contribution to psychology cannot be denied. I specifically think he views regarding memories being realtime reconstructions was brillant. That said I am not a fan of his model for the id, ego, and super ego. I think Frued didn't separate the cause for behaviour from the mechanisms of the brain well. I see social norms and morals as a chicken or the egg conversation. There are many behaviors and functions of the mind which developed hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some of those determine our social norms. They aren't continiously learned, taught to us by our parents, but rather behaviors associated with being human. Not all things but many things. Just as a puppy raise by humans from birth still grows up to behave like a dog. I think humans all grow up and behave like humans.

 

I agree: the human brain is not a " tabula rasa ", a clean slate, at birth, but i do think that the brain is also conditioned later by the circumstances of that birth i.e: where it was born, the culture and traditions of the parents and the influence of their own conditioning, the education it receives etc.

 

. Fully flushed out ideas come from somewhere. They aren't instinct. I have also be surprised by my emotional response to things. I have been far more impacted and far less impacted by things that I thought I would be implying various unconscious feelings beyond my conscious radar.

 

I think our unconscious minds are sophisticated but because we realize ourselves through our conscious there's a bias towards assuming our conscious is the source of our mental intangibles.

 

I agree here,too. I have often wondered how Beethoven's music could come from just the motor-skill of piano-playing and a knowledge of musical scales, or how Shakespeare's plays and poetry can be explained simply by his having a conscious knowledge of the English language. Incidentally, as Freud's model of consciousness has been mentioned, i think Shakespeare anticipated this in his play " The Tempest " where the characters of Caliban, Prospero and Ariel are, respectively, the Id, Ego and Superego. In turn, Shakespeare himself may have been informed by the ingenious metaphor of the Christian crucifixion.

[Ten oz]

 

In retrospect, I see we do have some agreement on survival traits. However, we defer slightly on the nature of the unconscious and I think that's because of a likely distinction in the basis for our views. My views are based on a perspective of how mind and aspects of consciousness likely evolved as suggested by our brain's primitive-to-contemporary functional developments. Those developments suggest that instinctual aspects of our behavior arose from elements in brain structure that evolved prior to the cortical developments that produce conscious thought. The parts of our brain that mediate our unconscious behaviors are reactive and do not engage thought as we might consciously do. What we might perceive as fully formed ideas from our unconscious may merely be our conscious interpretation of an unconscious reaction to an accumulation of sensory stimuli and information we have perceived and experienced. It's not our unconscious that produces those ideas, its our conscious recognition and interpretation of our unconscious perceptions and reactions that produce those ideas. Our conscious perception or awareness of having an idea is evident of that idea's conscious nature and origin.

I work in electrical engineering. It is fairly common for me to have several corrective maintenance projects go at a time. Not always, but often enough, I find that complete solutions to problems will come to me all at once. I will spend hours on a monday troubleshooting a project unsuccessfully and am forced by my schedule tomove on. Then later in the week I will be drinking coffee thinking about what I need from the grocery store and BOOM, the answer to solution will come to me. I know many engineers who as a troubleshooting technique with stop thinking about the problem they are working on and intentionally focus on something unrelated in hopes the answer will emerge on its own. Back to the OP, that is the mechanism this thread is about, the emergence of thought which is not consciously controlled.

 

As for evolution I simply don't view it as an all or nothing thing. Every gene, every mutation, is not and did not have to be useful. There are many inherited cancers, brain diseases, and disorders which do not become pronounced or realized until old age.. Up until a few hundred years ago humans weren't living long enough for many to impact populations in anyway. If I carry the autosomal dominant pattern for Alzheimer but die at 24yrs after being trampled by a mammoth than the disease I was carrying never impacted anything. It is a disease humans could have passed down for hundreds of thousands of years and not one person ever lived long enough to be impacted. We all have mutated genes. Some provide a survival advantage. Some don't add in survival yet don't inhibit survival enough to be weeded out either. My guess is male pattern baldness was around for millennia before anyone lived long enough to notice.

 

Ten Oz,

 

My dad, the one in my profile picture was, or maybe could still be considered, a Freudian psychologist.

 

I am not.

 

However, the efficacy of psychoanalysis vs psychiatric care I think should still be a concern of the mental health care field. I am not so sure we are smart enough yet to mess with the neurotransmitters in the brain and not mess with consciousness itself. That is, I am not so sure you can treat a chemical addiction, like a heroin addiction, with other chemicals that wedge themselves into the evolutionarily developed, pleasure/reward system. Too complex, and too much or too little of the particular uptake inhibitor or whatever chemical approach is being taken, results sometimes in unintended psychosis or suicidal thoughts, or dependency on the drug that was supposed to get you independent of a chemical dependency.

 

Much more direct, and simple to just do it right, and feel good about it. We have the feel good chemicals built right in.

 

But on the morals not having anything to do with consciousness, I have to disagree. We are conscious of each other, and what others think, and how they react to us, love us, or hate us, and whether they support us, or turn their backs on us, has everything to do with survival. And everything to do with happiness. The whole reason we are conscious is to have a model of the world put together in our brains, that we can navigate and test for the purposes of navigation and effecting the waking world, to our survival benefit. To find water and food and heat and shelter and clothes (and mates, and to identify and neutralize threats and such.) And our universities allow us to benefit from the tests and trials of others down through the ages, and our churches or parents or schools pass down the morays, and principles of human interaction, that work.

 

So one is not conscious of only one's belly button, and whether they themselves are hungry or not. We have mirror neurons where we flinch when the guy on tv is about to get hit. Our consciousness includes the desires of others. What their hopes and dreams are, what they are going to have for supper, is part of our consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR

We are conscious that others have feelings and are conscious that others are aware of us but it is not 100% correct. We are just guessing. For example many people are needlessly suspicious of each other. Husbands distrust their wives, children distrust their parents, and etc. Often totally unjustified. We imagine how others feel but it is far from an exact science. Many people assume they are funnier, more respected, and etc than they are just as others assume are not as appreciated or well received as they are. It is purely relative to ones own mind moment to moment. It is not a tangible thing.

 

I agree: the human brain is not a " tabula rasa ", a clean slate, at birth, but i do think that the brain is also conditioned later by the circumstances of that birth i.e: where it was born, the culture and traditions of the parents and the influence of their own conditioning, the education it receives etc.

 

All snowflakes look like snowflakes and yet all snowflakes are unique. All humans can behave like humans and still be unique based on culture, upbringing, and etc.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I liked your trouble shooting analogy. I was such, a trouble shooter, for most of my adult life. Communication equipment in the Army, electronic cash registers, bank printers, electronic typewriters, fax machines, copiers, (color and wide format), scanners, printers and multifunctional machines and their associated software systems. I was at the third level of repair, for the last 20 years, where I had to solve the problems the problem solvers were having trouble with. Often, like you story, I would come upon a solution, while on the pot, or watching a baseball game, or in that half asleep, half awake, waking dream time in the early morning, before the alarm sounded, or during the snooze alarm cycle.

 

I think the unconscious, or subconscious mind, can be thought of as a puzzle doer, putting pieces together this way and that, without expending actual muscle energy or causing changes to the waking world that can not be undone. "What if I were to change the PSU AND the driver board, at the same time, then the shorted component on the driver board, that was taking out the PSU, would not cause the compromised PSU to take out the new driver board?" You can "do" the test, without actually doing the test, and think through the implications, in a low consequence , low cost environment.

 

So, maybe the unconscious dream world, is a survival enhancer. One can search ones memory, go down every path, to find where that blueberry patch was, without actually having to walk down every path to find that big fallen Oak tree with the clearing where the blueberries grew. Once the solution "comes" to you, then you set out walking toward the clearing.

 

Regards, TAR

with a basket in hand, knowing that it is hard to carry a lot of blueberries back to the family in your hands

and perhaps one subconsciously associates clearings in general with blueberries, after finding blueberries in clearings more than once

Edited May 9, 2017 by tar

[goldglow]

 

 

I think the unconscious, or subconscious mind, can be thought of as a puzzle doer, putting pieces together this way and that, without expending actual muscle energy or causing changes to the waking world that can not be undone.

I can really relate to this, being a crossword enthusiast. Many times i have been stuck on clues and leave the crossword unfinished, and probably consciously forget all about it as i turn to some other task. Then, if i return to the same crossword later ,the answers sometimes, ( not always ), appear as if from nowhere, without any further thought.

 

 

 

So, maybe the unconscious dream world, is a survival enhancer. One can search ones memory, go down every path, to find where that blueberry patch was, without actually having to walk down every path to find that big fallen Oak tree with the clearing where the blueberries grew. Once the solution "comes" to you, then you set out walking toward the clearing......

 

 

.....with a basket in hand, knowing that it is hard to carry a lot of blueberries back to the family in your hands

 

I think the unconscious dream-world can also be a source of wish-fulfillment too: desires unobtainable in real life can be satisfied in a dream - but only until we wake up, sadly.

[tar]

goldglow,

 

That wish fulfillment aspect ties in nicely with my dopamine theory. When I was quitting smoking and talking about the 100 things that make you feel good, and such Phi for All, I think it was, suggested THINKING about sitting on a beach, with a warm tropical, fragrant breeze blowing. Just the thought, provides some dopamine, makes you feel good.

 

Regards, TAR

also relates to our association with others, as we often get enjoyment watching others enjoy life

 

I am thinking about how I enjoy it, when Aaron Judge hits a 450 ft, homer.

Or how you feel sort of good when you see someone step on the trailing piece of toilet paper, without the person who had the paper stuck, noticing the help.

[goldglow]

Ha,ha,yes. Being English, though, i don't know who Aaron Judge* is , but i do know exactly what you mean! Thanks,tar. By the way, is dopamine the same in affect as serotonin, as you have mentioned both together in an earlier post?

 

*( I'm guessing he is a good Baseball player. )

 

 

**( Just googled him - he is. )

Edited May 9, 2017 by goldglow

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

I liked your trouble shooting analogy. I was such, a trouble shooter, for most of my adult life. Communication equipment in the Army, electronic cash registers, bank printers, electronic typewriters, fax machines, copiers, (color and wide format), scanners, printers and multifunctional machines and their associated software systems. I was at the third level of repair, for the last 20 years, where I had to solve the problems the problem solvers were having trouble with. Often, like you story, I would come upon a solution, while on the pot, or watching a baseball game, or in that half asleep, half awake, waking dream time in the early morning, before the alarm sounded, or during the snooze alarm cycle.

 

I think the unconscious, or subconscious mind, can be thought of as a puzzle doer, putting pieces together this way and that, without expending actual muscle energy or causing changes to the waking world that can not be undone. "What if I were to change the PSU AND the driver board, at the same time, then the shorted component on the driver board, that was taking out the PSU, would not cause the compromised PSU to take out the new driver board?" You can "do" the test, without actually doing the test, and think through the implications, in a low consequence , low cost environment.

 

So, maybe the unconscious dream world, is a survival enhancer. One can search ones memory, go down every path, to find where that blueberry patch was, without actually having to walk down every path to find that big fallen Oak tree with the clearing where the blueberries grew. Once the solution "comes" to you, then you set out walking toward the clearing.

 

Regards, TAR

 

with a basket in hand, knowing that it is hard to carry a lot of blueberries back to the family in your hands

Beyond continuing to problem solve while while ones conscious focus is elsewhere there is also the example of "being in the zone". When one is in "the zone" solutions arise instantaneously without any perceived conscious thought.

 

In my opinion our unconscious is much more than just instinct. It thinks with all the intellectual capacity and nuance as our conscious mind does. Perhaps more so. We merely perceive conscious thought more intimately so we have a bias towards it.

 

So both our consciousness​ and unconsciousness​ are conscious (aware and able to think). Then there are parts of our brains which are not conscious, are not able to do anything but filter inputs and outputs like widgets. They detect odors, signal our heart to beat, etc. Those are the primitive parts. They aren't fully interactive and don't help with logic or reason.