Consciousness and the illusion of choice

[DrmDoc]

So with our perceived consciousness you don't think our unconscious is able to interact with the world?

 

No, not without the focus and direction our conscious provides. Unconsciously, we are aware of a myriad of sensory experiences or stimuli (input) from a variety of sources. Our responses to that stimuli are mediated by our conscious perception of their immediacy and that perception of immediacy is determine by the prominence of our unconscious responses. We can't simultaneously respond to all stimuli, that would be an inefficient and likely ineffective expense of our mental and physical efforts and energies. Therefore, our unbridled unconscious responses are metered through the focalizing function our conscious attributes provide. However, there are occasions when our response are generated without thought and those occasions regard our instinctive responses, which are the responses we engage because of some immediate survival demand.

 

 

If active,conscious perception is a mechanical process of the experiencing brain, then there is sometimes a need for conscious thought to interact with that process. So ,if thought does spring from the unconscious, then it is obviously the unconscious interacting with the perceived world, through the medium of conscious thought: e.g. if i see someone in the street, to simple mechanical perception it could be anyone, but my unconscious recognizes that someone and tells me " That's my sister ". But, without that mechanical perception, there is no outer world for the unconscious to interact with, so i think it must be a symbiotic relationship between perception and the unconscious.

 

Yes, indeed.

Edited May 13, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

No, not without the focus and direction our conscious provides. Unconsciously, we are aware of a myriad of sensory experiences or stimuli (input) from a variety of sources. Our responses to that stimuli are mediated by our conscious perception of their immediacy and that perception of immediacy is determine by the prominence of our unconscious responses. We can't simultaneously respond to all stimuli, that would be an inefficient and likely ineffective expense of our mental and physical efforts and energies. Therefore, our unbridled unconscious responses are metered through the focalizing function our conscious attributes provide. However, there are occasions when our response are generated without thought and those occasions regard our instinctive responses, which are the responses we engage because of some immediate survival demand.

 

I disagree. As mentioned in previous posts I can recall countless times complex thoughts and solutions to problems have been realized instantaneously in my perceived consciousness. Not merely instinctive responses to stimuli. I believe our unconscious(processes/thoughs we are unaware of) is just as capable of reasoning and problem solving as our preceived conscious and isn't reliant on our perceived consciousness for information. I don't believe our perceived consciousness is responsible for relying information. There are many reaction to the world around us we have no conscious control over. I do not consciously control how I feel in response to something, what I am reminded of, and etc. I don't think our perceived conscious mind is an interactive link between external and internal stimuli.

 

I think perceived conscious is something more superfical. I think it provides an evolutionary advantage regarding social interaction. It is a mechanism that allows for a split between who we are inside our minds and what we show the wrold.This exclusively only benefits social inaction. Rather than humans behaving and acting as they feel compelled we can lie, suppress anger, pretend to be happy, and etc. We have the conscious capacity to present ourselves to the word in anyway we choose regardless of how we feel or think. We can pretend to respect people we don't, pretend not to have favorites when we do, and extra. That has major social interaction advantages. It is also uniquely human. Other animals do not pretend to like foods they don't for example. I think our consciousness exists to control our personalities. I don't think our perceived consciousness does much else but it is probably important to our personalities that our perceived consciousness believes it is in control. Thus the illussion of choice. I think problem solution and reasoning can be and are often done unconsciously. Yes, things like language (spoken, written, math, music, etc) are consciously learned but humans were problem solving and tool making hundreds of thousands of years before languages existed. Launguage is a social interactive tool that allows humans to better combine efforts and pass information.

 

Our perceived consciousness being a social interactive tool is why when focused on single tasks alone we are able to get "into the zone" and act without the need for perceived conscious thought. It is also why our minds race a mile a minute when put "on the spot" in public. Alone in a workshop fixing equipment my perceived consciousness day dreams and wonders off. In front of crowd, public speaking, my perceived conscious mind races with feverish focus.

 

 

*Of course I could be 100% wrong. This is a philosophical discussion after all. I am not claiming I am right and you are wrong.

[DrmDoc]

I disagree. As mentioned in previous posts I can recall countless times complex thoughts and solutions to problems have been realized instantaneously in my perceived consciousness. Not merely instinctive responses to stimuli.

 

If you will, consider the number of instantaneously emerging thoughtful solutions to complex problems that ultimately weren't the solutions you thought they were. Isn't that a nature of conscious thought? Where solutions emerge, then are given conscious consideration to determine their appropriateness before implementation. Some are appropriate, others aren't. Instinctive responses are those responses we engage without such conscious consideration; e.g., the decision to run in the opposite direction of an explosion. When a solution emerges in your mind, it's the end result of your prior thoughtful experiences and considerations no matter how instantaneously that solution appears to emerge. Our prior thoughts, experiences, and considerations--essentially our memory stores--are the purview of our unconscious. Reasoning and problem solving is merely a process of conforming our responses to parameters previously installed and set by our conscious perception. Those fully formed ideas from our unconscious are merely those ideas that conform to the prior parameters of our conscious perceptions, in my opinion.

[Ten oz]

 

If you will, consider the number of instantaneously emerging thoughtful solutions to complex problems that ultimately weren't the solutions you thought they were. Isn't that a nature of conscious thought? Where solutions emerge, then are given conscious consideration to determine their appropriateness before implementation. Some are appropriate, others aren't. Instinctive responses are those responses we engage without such conscious consideration; e.g., the decision to run in the opposite direction of an explosion. When a solution emerges in your mind, it's the end result of your prior thoughtful experiences and considerations no matter how instantaneously that solution appears to emerge. Our prior thoughts, experiences, and considerations--essentially our memory stores--are the purview of our unconscious. Reasoning and problem solving is merely a process of conforming our responses to parameters previously installed and set by our conscious perception. Those fully formed ideas from our unconscious are merely those ideas that conform to the prior parameters of our conscious perceptions, in my opinion.

It only takes one to to be spot on to prove my unconscious has complex thought ability. I have had thousands in my life. Additionally trial and error is something that requires our perceived conscious as we are not consciously privy to any trial and error our unconscious mind engages in.

[DrmDoc]

It only takes one to to be spot on to prove my unconscious has complex thought ability. I have had thousands in my life. Additionally trial and error is something that requires our perceived conscious as we are not consciously privy to any trial and error our unconscious mind engages in.

 

Even that particular one arises in the same manor and require the same evaluation as those that are not spot on. What you appear to advocating are thoughts intuitively deemed to be spot on without any outward or conscious assessment that they are. It's impossible to know that they are without such an assessment. The spontaneous thoughts we sense as spot on is a conscious perspective of those responses, which a perspective defined by the parameters of our conscious perceptions.

Edited May 14, 2017 by DrmDoc

[goldglow]

 

If you will, consider the number of instantaneously emerging thoughtful solutions to complex problems that ultimately weren't the solutions you thought they were. Isn't that a nature of conscious thought? Where solutions emerge, then are given conscious consideration to determine their appropriateness before implementation. Some are appropriate, others aren't. Instinctive responses are those responses we engage without such conscious consideration; e.g., the decision to run in the opposite direction of an explosion. When a solution emerges in your mind, it's the end result of your prior thoughtful experiences and considerations no matter how instantaneously that solution appears to emerge. Our prior thoughts, experiences, and considerations--essentially our memory stores--are the purview of our unconscious. Reasoning and problem solving is merely a process of conforming our responses to parameters previously installed and set by our conscious perception. Those fully formed ideas from our unconscious are merely those ideas that conform to the prior parameters of our conscious perceptions, in my opinion.

 

It only takes one to to be spot on to prove my unconscious has complex thought ability. I have had thousands in my life. Additionally trial and error is something that requires our perceived conscious as we are not consciously privy to any trial and error our unconscious mind engages in.

 

 

Even that particular one arises in the same manor and require the same evaluation as those that are not spot on. What you appear to advocating are thoughts intuitively deemed to be spot on without any outward or conscious assessment that they are. It's impossible to know that they are without such an assessment. The spontaneous thoughts we sense as spot on is a conscious perspective of those responses, which a perspective defined by the parameters of our conscious perceptions.

 

There is a lot to be agreed upon in these posts. No, we aren't " privy " to the action of the unconscious, only aware of the finished result of that action when it enters our perceiving conscious.

Essentially,while the unconscious is working away " beneath " the threshold of consciousness, the perceiving consciousness can deal with outward perceptions and conscious thought until the response from the unconscious " rises " into consciousness.

 

For both mechanical processes to go on at the same time, they must take place in different parts of the brain, and it seems that the unconscious part can reach the conscious part but not vice-versa, despite our synapses and neurotransmitters, ( is there some kind of one-way " butterfly " valve involved? ), and the unconscious, being dominant,can interrupt the conscious processes when necessary. So, even though the unconscious is mechanically more dominant,we must remember that it is not all-knowing or infallible and we can't rely on it to be omniscient all the time.

 

I imagine the unconscious as a library where all our knowledge is stored in " books " of memory. We can't get into the library, so we have to leave it to the librarian to

find the relevant book we need at that precise moment. Sometimes the book is found immediately, sometimes it's harder to find, especially if the library is large; sometimes we may even receive the wrong book. Once we have the book, however, the conscious mind can read it . Once read, it can go back to the library.

Edited May 14, 2017 by goldglow

[Ten oz]

 

Even that particular one arises in the same manor and require the same evaluation as those that are not spot on. What you appear to advocating are thoughts intuitively deemed to be spot on without any outward or conscious assessment that they are. It's impossible to know that they are without such an assessment. The spontaneous thoughts we sense as spot on is a conscious perspective of those responses, which a perspective defined by the parameters of our conscious perceptions.

People also habor thoughts they are unaware of. Some people requiring a lifetime of therapy to reconcile them. I am not implying anything magical. Unconscious and conscious thought is all within ones mind. The times my unconscious processes information inaccurately is no worse than the times I consciously do so. It isn't as though I am saying the unconscious mind has special powers or contains more knowledge. That is not what I think. I am simple saying that the unconscious mind has access to all the logic, knowledge, and etc. It can process information too, equally. Consciousness is an extention of a specific time of thought and not the home of all thought. That specific thought primarily deals with social interacction.

 

Intelligence has obvious survival advantages. So does having better eyesight, hearing, coordination, dexterity, and etc. Humans didn't exclusively breed intelligence. Natural selection is a roller coaster and not a straight line. Look at humans today. Which gives someone a better chance to reproduce; a great sense of humor or genius mathmatical ability, charm or a master craftsmanship skills, a hint of mystery or a science degree? I think, provided one has average intelligence social interaction skills are more critical to reproduction than the degree to which someone is skilled or above average in intelligence. Because of that one can't ignore the role having a good personality played in natural selection. I think that it is the major function of the voice in our heads, our perceieved consciousness. It provides us a looking glass outside feelings and logic. takes us beyond reasoning and allows us to do stupid things that illogically help us reproduce. A hilarious bartender with a great smile and good listening skills wouldn't be well served to survival in a wildnerness alone. Smiling wouldn't help catch food or make tools. Yet within a group of people that same person would thrive. The overall fate of the group may ultimately depend on the collective brain power of the group but provided they have the minimum brain power to survive the bartender's personality would serve them well. Animals don't smile, laugh, pretend to like things they don't and etc. To do things things requires a specific type of thought.

 

You mentioned that because something is consciously realized that one can never know for sure if it was conscious or unconsciously produced. While true it is a bit like saying how does one know life isn't all just a dream. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it can be applied to both of our theories equally.

 

For both mechanical processes to go on at the same time, they must take place in different parts of the brain, and it seems that the unconscious part can reach the conscious part but not vice-versa, despite our synapses and neurotransmitters, ( is there some kind of one-way " butterfly " valve involved? ), and the unconscious, being dominant,can interrupt the conscious processes when necessary. So, even though the unconscious is mechanically more dominant,we must remember that it is not all-knowing or infallible and we can't rely on it to be omniscient all the time.

Some people are taller, some have better hearing, some have louder vioces, others have better memories. We are all not identical. Perhaps the relationship between unconcious and concious is different for everyone?

[goldglow]

Some people are taller, some have better hearing, some have louder vioces, others have better memories. We are all not identical. Perhaps the relationship between unconcious and concious is different for everyone?

 

Good point. Though i think that the genetically inherited potentiality of the conscious/unconscious relationship is likely to be similar for everyone,the actual physical mechanism could definitely vary from person to person. After all, the brain is a delicate organism vulnerable to birth-defects or physical injury or a serious chemical imbalance, which could impair this relationship. Lack of proper education, too, or an exclusive indoctrination, would have a great affect on what is there in the unconscious, waiting to be accessed by the conscious. E.g. , the " brain-washing " of so-called religious cults, turning people into the unthinking machines of a single overarching idea which permeates the unconscious and so, in turn, the conscious mind.

[dimreepr]

I've been involved in several, potentially mortal, accidents and have walked away with the same memories of each event; I remember the moment of realisation:

 

1. Oh shit I'm going to die!!! (or seriously hurt.... alot....).

 

2. Oh, I'm not dead (and the pains not bad).

 

I can only attribute the lack of the intervening memory/consciousness (given a reasonable data-set of 100% compliance, if anecdotal) is due to being completely by-passed, in order to accelerate decision making, at the expense of awareness.

 

Just a thought... But it does add credence to my suggestion that "the illusion of choice" is on a spectrum and that the illusion is true about half the time.

Edited May 14, 2017 by dimreepr

[DrmDoc]

People also habor thoughts they are unaware of. Some people requiring a lifetime of therapy to reconcile them. I am not implying anything magical. Unconscious and conscious thought is all within ones mind. The times my unconscious processes information inaccurately is no worse than the times I consciously do so. It isn't as though I am saying the unconscious mind has special powers or contains more knowledge. That is not what I think. I am simple saying that the unconscious mind has access to all the logic, knowledge, and etc. It can process information too, equally. Consciousness is an extention of a specific time of thought and not the home of all thought. That specific thought primarily deals with social interacction.

 

Intelligence has obvious survival advantages. So does having better eyesight, hearing, coordination, dexterity, and etc. Humans didn't exclusively breed intelligence. Natural selection is a roller coaster and not a straight line. Look at humans today. Which gives someone a better chance to reproduce; a great sense of humor or genius mathmatical ability, charm or a master craftsmanship skills, a hint of mystery or a science degree? I think, provided one has average intelligence social interaction skills are more critical to reproduction than the degree to which someone is skilled or above average in intelligence. Because of that one can't ignore the role having a good personality played in natural selection. I think that it is the major function of the voice in our heads, our perceieved consciousness. It provides us a looking glass outside feelings and logic. takes us beyond reasoning and allows us to do stupid things that illogically help us reproduce. A hilarious bartender with a great smile and good listening skills wouldn't be well served to survival in a wildnerness alone. Smiling wouldn't help catch food or make tools. Yet within a group of people that same person would thrive. The overall fate of the group may ultimately depend on the collective brain power of the group but provided they have the minimum brain power to survive the bartender's personality would serve them well. Animals don't smile, laugh, pretend to like things they don't and etc. To do things things requires a specific type of thought.

 

You mentioned that because something is consciously realized that one can never know for sure if it was conscious or unconsciously produced. While true it is a bit like saying how does one know life isn't all just a dream. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think it can be applied to both of our theories equally.

 

If I now understand you're position, our conscious and unconscious are somewhat equal in nature and are capable of separate reasoning and responses. If true, then that continues not to be the position I hold relative to my perspective of brain function. From my perspective, our conscious is merely the means (interface) by which we engage our perceptual experiences (input) with our responses (output). As I've conveyed, all of our responses emerge from our unconscious processes, which are the nebulous mental processes underpinning the composition of our thoughts and behavior. Perhaps the clearest example of my perspective is suggested by consciousness while under anesthesia. Amid competently administered anesthesia, our responses are rendered inert and we are left unaware of our perceptual reality of being under a surgeon's knife. We do not experience thought, pain, dreams, or perceptions of any sort until we fully arouse from the conscious effects of anesthesia. Even our reflexes and our ability to form memories are disabled under complete sedation. Effectively, anesthesia disables the means (conscious function) by which we engage our perceptual experiences and reality with our responses. Without that means, we are without any response inclusive of those believed to emerge from the unconscious exclusively.

Edited May 14, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

If I now understand you're position, our conscious and unconscious are somewhat equal in nature and are capable of separate reasoning and responses. If true, then that continues not to be the position I hold relative to my perspective of brain function. From my perspective, our conscious is merely the means (interface) by which we engage our perceptual experiences (input) with our responses (output). As I've conveyed, all of our responses emerge from our unconscious processes, which are the nebulous mental processes underpinning the composition of our thoughts and behavior. Perhaps the clearest example of my perspective is suggested by consciousness while under anesthesia. Amid competently administered anesthesia, our responses are rendered inert and we are left unaware of our perceptual reality of being under a surgeon's knife. We do not experience thought, pain, dreams, or perceptions of any sort until we fully arouse from the conscious effects of anesthesia. Even our reflexes and our ability to form memories are disabled under complete sedation. Effectively, anesthesia disables the means (conscious function) by which we engage our perceptual experiences and reality with our responses. Without that means, we are without any response inclusive of those believed to emerge from the unconscious exclusively.

No, not separate. Decisions are made unconsciously and presented to our conscious as choices and or suggestions. Our conscious then makes a decisions (one already determined by our unconscious). The feeling our perceived conscious made the choice or thought out the idea being important to our personality development. If we were aware that we were behaving in predictable ways it would hurt our sense of uniqueness and individuality that helps shape our identity. Every human imagines themselves to be very unique, an island to themselves, specific.Yet we are predictable. From who will see a specific movie opening weekend to how many people with drive on a specific highway over a holiday pollsters and staticians only need relatively small sample sizes to predict how large groups of people will behave. If everyone was legit making independent choices about things moment by moment prediction models would fail more often than they do. Many of the choices people believe themselves to be laboring over are already decided but allowing ones conscious to reason itself into that decision provides a sense of self and independence that is important to our personality.

 

Overtime some people come to realizes that they have become their parents. Despite a lifetime of perceived independent choices that should've individually shaped their lives making them unique; they are basically their parents. There haven't actually fall far from the tree at all. Other people continually fall into the same situations over and over with realtionships, jobs, and etc. It is because we often don't understand what the real motivations are driving us to various conclusions. We accept that our perceived conscious is in control.

 

I don't believe it is the same for everyone. Some people break out of cycles, some people fall very far from the tree. Our consciousness is capable of thought. It all isn't purely a charade. We are capable of supressing feelings and acting despite fear. Different people do it to different degrees. Either way though it directly impacts our personality and social behavior. Alone in the wilderness trying to survive how much I was like my father or howindependent my choices were would be irrelevant.

As for anesthesia, it affects the whole brain. Both unconscious and perceived conscious is all inside the brain. The drugs affect the whole brain. That is why the have to monitor ones heart and breathing so closely because even those basic systems can stop.

[DrmDoc]

No, not separate. Decisions are made unconsciously and presented to our conscious as choices and or suggestions. Our conscious then makes a decisions (one already determined by our unconscious). The feeling our perceived conscious made the choice or thought out the idea being important to our personality development. If we were aware that we were behaving in predictable ways it would hurt our sense of uniqueness and individuality that helps shape our identity. Every human imagines themselves to be very unique, an island to themselves, specific.Yet we are predictable. From who will see a specific movie opening weekend to how many people with drive on a specific highway over a holiday pollsters and staticians only need relatively small sample sizes to predict how large groups of people will behave. If everyone was legit making independent choices about things moment by moment prediction models would fail more often than they do. Many of the choices people believe themselves to be laboring over are already decided but allowing ones conscious to reason itself into that decision provides a sense of self and independence that is important to our personality.

 

Overtime some people come to realizes that they have become their parents. Despite a lifetime of perceived independent choices that should've individually shaped their lives making them unique; they are basically their parents. There haven't actually fall far from the tree at all. Other people continually fall into the same situations over and over with realtionships, jobs, and etc. It is because we often don't understand what the real motivations are driving us to various conclusions. We accept that our perceived conscious is in control.

 

I don't believe it is the same for everyone. Some people break out of cycles, some people fall very far from the tree. Our consciousness is capable of thought. It all isn't purely a charade. We are capable of supressing feelings and acting despite fear. Different people do it to different degrees. Either way though it directly impacts our personality and social behavior. Alone in the wilderness trying to survive how much I was like my father or howindependent my choices were would be irrelevant.

As for anesthesia, it affects the whole brain. Both unconscious and perceived conscious is all inside the brain. The drugs affect the whole brain. That is why the have to monitor ones heart and breathing so closely because even those basic systems can stop.

 

Except for that last part, I think we are suggesting the same thing but in different ways. You stated that varying decisions are made unconsciously, while I said that all our responses emerge from an unconscious process. The decisions we make are essentially responses to stimuli in my view. You further stated that the varying decisions emerging from our unconscious are presented to our conscious as choice; whereas, I suggested that our conscious sets the parameters for the appropriateness of our responses. In my view, nothing emerges, even as a thought response, unless it conforms to some parameter previously set by our conscious perception of our reality. So, I do think we're not that much apart. However, regarding the effects of anesthesia, the entirety of our brain is rendered unconscious and all that entails relative to our discussion of that quality. As you may know, anesthesia doesn't cause the cessation of brain function, which would be brain death. Our brain is continually active even amid sedation and that activity clearly reflects the unconscious element of our brain function and its response capability. Our lack of memory, thought, and behavioral responses while anesthetized is evidence of the ineffectual nature of our unconscious without a conscious interface.

Edited May 14, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

Except for that last part, I think we are suggesting the same thing but in different ways. You stated that varying decisions are made unconsciously, while I said that all our responses emerge from an unconscious process. The decisions we make are essentially responses to stimuli in my view. You further stated that the varying decisions emerging from our unconscious are presented to our conscious as choice; whereas, I suggested that our conscious sets the parameters for the appropriateness of our responses. In my view, nothing emerges, even as a thought response, unless it conforms to some parameter previously set by our conscious perception of our reality. So, I do think we're that much apart. However, regarding the effects of anesthesia, the entirety of our brain is rendered unconscious and all that entails relative to our discussion of that quality. As you may know, anesthesia doesn't cause the cessation of brain function, which would be brain death. Our brain is continually activity even amid sedation and that activity clearly reflects the unconscious element of our brain function and its response capability. Our lack of memory, thought, and behavioral responses while anesthetized is evidence of the ineffectual nature of our unconscious without a conscious interface.

I should have said "the illusion of a choice". I believe the decision has already been made. Our perceived conscious believes it has a choice, a say, when it doesn't.

[tar]

"Yes, things like language (spoken, written, math, music, etc) are consciously learned but humans were problem solving and tool making hundreds of thousands of years before languages existed. Launguage is a social interactive tool that allows humans to better combine efforts and pass information."

 

Ten Oz,

Not sure one can think, without language. It might be, that what you are talking about as conscious thought is the only thinking that is really going on. Sure we have impulses and reflexes and emotional reaction to hormones and pheromones and such, but thinking is done, usually in a language. Math, logic, English, pictures, symbols, something, that could be considered a language. Earlier someone suggested that an author could have a thought that subsequently takes a year to put into words. My personal theory about dreams is that they are how we talk to ourselves, in our own personal symbolic language. Very often near impossible to translate this language to English, but still a language. A conversation is still going on, between some conversants. That part of the brain, able to converse with unseen others, is also capable of conversing with "oneself".

 

For example, do you guys "hear" me, when you read my words? Have you outfitted TAR, and Ten Oz and DrmDoc, with a voice, as you read?

 

Try thinking a conscious thought, without using language.

 

Regards, TAR

or maybe walk it back even further...how can you be conscious of anything unless something is standing for something else...the ability to make an analogy may be the basis of consciousness

 

after all, how can you be conscious of a tree? the tree never got into your brain, some "image" was internalized

I don't think even a pre-language human (if there was such a thing), could solve a problem without "imagining" a solution.

how do you chip a piece of flint to a point without imagining the stone changing shape as you strike it just so

 

the "meaning" of a word, exists, prior the word, but the word allows the meaning to be held in two minds, at once

 

whether the unconscious is thought of as a separate mind, doing its own thinking or not, there is no communication of the thought, until a word, or symbol is shared between conversants

[Ten oz]

Sometimes I internalize lanuage when I think but not always. Something my thoughts are images and feelings without any associated language. Some thoughts are totally indescribable which is why we have the sayings like "words do it no justice", "words haven't even been invented yet", "I am at a loss for words",and etc. Thought can come in many different forms. Sometimes they require assembly and other times they are fully realized instantaneously. An author can have a thought which is realized in his or her mind in seconds yet takes a year to writer out into language.

 

@tar, you yourself mentioned complex solutions coming to you while on the pot. All problem solving doesn't require a rolling monologue going in ones head. Our unconscious problem solutions. When you are working on something and "in the zone" are you thinking in language or is information flowing in another manner words can't describe? I can beaware of what is known vs unknown, aware of my needs, understannd limitations, and etc without having to think (perceived conscious thought) about it.

 

Standard structured education is done in language via our perceive conscious. We also learn from observation and experience. Everyone is different though. Everyone that takes the same biology class won't come away with the same knowledge. Even amongst those who are most sincere about their studies there will be differences. Despite what we are taught, despite what we tell ourselves, everyones mind will process information its own way. That information is processed unconsciously in a manner one is unaware (perceived consciously) of determines how that information gets processed. How we feel about the instructor, our overall ambitions, things our parents told us a children, and etc all play a role. Which is why so many different memorization tricks exist. Straight forward perceived conscious focus is often not adequate alone for learning. Additionally while in biology class we are learning many other things. We are learning the whole enviroment. Our minds unconsciously are forming opinions about ever single person in the room, making decisions about where the best place to sit is, and etc. So much of what we know was never taught to us, least not in a form we were consciously (perceived consciousness) aware of.

 

Organizing thought into language is a skill. One that wouldn't help if stranded alone on a island but would be very useful if stranded on an island with other people. It has obvious advantages and is a skill I believe humans naturally selected for. However having the gift of gab doesn't make someone more intelligent. History is full of brillant people who contributed to our understanding of the world who were socially awkard and struggled to relate with others. One can be terrible at language and still very intelligent and vice versa. A person can be very intelligent and have no sense of humor, self image, style, or etc. I think our perceived conscious is oriented around social interaction. It contibutes to the collection of information, of course. I don't think it is the source of our intelligence though. The thought we perceive is just a trick. Years of naturally selecting humans we are more focused on their internal monolgues. We are a group species and within a group being able to joke, lie, build trust, intimidate, and etc others is more valuable that being able to calculate vectors or understand biology. Make a potential mate smile is more important to ones ability to reproduce than knowing what a zygote is. Our perceived conscious always us to do that. To thinks and reason in seemingly superfluas ways. Like the colorful feathers on exotic birds. The feathers don't help them fly or hunt. They are just their to impress each other.

[KipIngram]

I don't see that it's obvious at all that choice is an illusion. It might be, but I don't see solid proof of that. Regarding ideas just "coming to us," that's definitely a real phenomena; I've experienced it many times. Usually after I have spent some time consciously trying to solve a problem with no success; we clearly continue to work on those things unconsciously in some way.

 

I see two different things to consider in discussions like this. First, free will. I feel fairly sure I have free will, but I'm not willing to stick a 100% stake in the ground on that claim. Second, there is self-awareness. I am willing to stick that stake in the ground; as far as I'm concerned the very fact that I recognize my own self-awareness indicates that it has to exist. If it didn't I wouldn't even be wondering about it - I'd just be robotically going through the motions of existence.

 

The notion of self-awareness is more than enough to tie mainstream physical theory in knots. Even when we apply them to biological systems our most fundamental laws of physics are still theories of non-sentient stuff. Consciousness clearly doesn't enter into our theories at the bottom (fundamental) end, and I have a very hard time seeing how it's going to make its way in at the top end (emergence). Nothing anyone has shown me about emergence so far has seemed very convincing.

 

Consciousness really seems to "bother" some people; such an effort is made to deny it.

[tar]

Kiplngram,

 

While Ten Oz has some excellent insights into this, I am leaning in DrmDoc's direction, in terms of not thinking of subconscious or unconscious thought as done by someone other than the point of focus player. That is, just because you don't know exactly the reasoning behind a particular decision, does not mean it was not your decision. Human judgement is important. Very important, and it includes all the subcurrents that Ten Oz is talking about. All the mental calculations, the relationships, the understanding of what your relationship is with the changing world, and where you stand amongst the other players.

 

Was driving back from VT (my daughter is now a PhD in chemistry) and there were endless decisions I was making on the road. When to go out into the fast lane, when to leave a space for a truck to pull over into the slow lane and such. More calculus than I know, gauging speed and acceleration and deceleration distances and the like, all at 60-75 miles an hour. Lots of laws and conventions and such were in play, and trucks would blink their lights to say thank you when I made a place on the road for them to keep their speed up, approaching a hill and such. Real choices, all. No illusion. Wrong choice could easily result in bent metal and blood. Everyone on the road was making choices all the time too. Sometimes a little selfish but for the most part, especially in VA and PA, the other drivers on the road were mindful (conscious) of me, and me of them.

 

Kant, in critique of pure reason, talks about the "understanding" a human has, and how the various thoughts, are synthetized from the a priori (intuitions) understanding of space and the a priori understanding of time. All else, all the things we "can say" about a thing, are built from these undefinable understandings. Nobody knows how to describe what time is, but everybody knows exactly what it is. Same with space. The categories include everything you can in general say about something.

 

So thought, is putting these judgements we make about the world, into a useful format, that we can either remember, or share. (or synthesize into other thoughts)

 

So just because we don't have a clever way to write a thing down, or the words to express a thing, does not mean we have not understood a thing, and made a decision that would be beneficial to our situation. Allow us to enjoy life, and make it possible for others to do the same.

 

But the end result is not an illusion. We really are here, enjoying life, and making it possible for others to do the same.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited May 15, 2017 by tar

[DrmDoc]

I should have said "the illusion of a choice". I believe the decision has already been made. Our perceived conscious believes it has a choice, a say, when it doesn't.

 

In my view, conscious choice isn't quite an illusion because the choices we make cannot be made without conscious input. Our conscious mental domain is a conduit for the responses emerging from where all our responses emerge, which is our unconscious domain. To reach full and complete expression, our responses must conform to our conscious conduit of perception--from entry thru exit.

[Ten oz]

I don't see that it's obvious at all that choice is an illusion. It might be, but I don't see solid proof of that. Regarding ideas just "coming to us," that's definitely a real phenomena; I've experienced it many times. Usually after I have spent some time consciously trying to solve a problem with no success; we clearly continue to work on those things unconsciously in some way.

 

I see two different things to consider in discussions like this. First, free will. I feel fairly sure I have free will, but I'm not willing to stick a 100% stake in the ground on that claim. Second, there is self-awareness. I am willing to stick that stake in the ground; as far as I'm concerned the very fact that I recognize my own self-awareness indicates that it has to exist. If it didn't I wouldn't even be wondering about it - I'd just be robotically going through the motions of existence.

 

The notion of self-awareness is more than enough to tie mainstream physical theory in knots. Even when we apply them to biological systems our most fundamental laws of physics are still theories of non-sentient stuff. Consciousness clearly doesn't enter into our theories at the bottom (fundamental) end, and I have a very hard time seeing how it's going to make its way in at the top end (emergence). Nothing anyone has shown me about emergence so far has seemed very convincing.

 

Consciousness really seems to "bother" some people; such an effort is made to deny it.

In the discussion I have been drawing a dichotomy between conscious and unconscious thought. It is difficult and has created confusion at times as everyone has slightly different understandings/definitions for each. For me Conscious thoughts are thoughts we are aware we are leading/having. Unconscious thoughts are those we are not aware we have or are happening. However ALL thought concious or unconscious is happening in ones mind. So whether a decisions are made unconsciously or consciously it is still us (me, myself, and I) making the decision. When I say choice is an illusion I only mean that as it applies to our conscious thoughts. Ultimately decisions do get made and they are ours. So free will isn't being challanged here in my opinion. People do make decisions. I am just asking if they make them consciously or unconsciously.

 

I also see a seperation between consciousness in general and conscious thought. I can be aware without thinking about the thing which I am aware. An example would be sitting around watching a movie and spontaneously reaching down and scratching my leg. I am aware I scratched my leg(sort of) but don't think about it and am totally indifferent to it. I know it happened but no conscious thought is given to it. I don't think "oh, I just scratched". It is just known not thought about. Another example is navigate through ones home. Walking from the living room to the kitchen I pass numerous items. As I pass them I do not keep a running inventory going. I don't look at my couch and think "couch". I think (perceived couch thought) nothing. I know it is my couch, I know it is there and I walk around it but I do not think about it or the many other items at all. I can know things, be aware, with out having to think about and focus on things. Where as typing this post requires thought.

 

So what I have been propsing is that our conscious minds ponder choices and ideas but that our unconscious is actually in control. Our conscious mind controls our personality and social interaction skills. Believe our conscious minds are the source of our intelligence and decision making is useful to our sense of identity.

 

In my view, conscious choice isn't quite an illusion because the choices we make cannot be made without conscious input. Our conscious mental domain is a conduit for the responses emerging from where all our responses emerge, which is our unconscious domain. To reach full and complete expression, our responses must conform to our conscious conduit of perception--from entry thru exit.

Do you believe all animals have an unconscious and conscious then? It seems as if you are saying that without conscious thought there can be to actions. A squirrel may desire an acorn unconsciously but it would require conscious thought for that squirrel to get an acorn.

[DrmDoc]

Do you believe all animals have an unconscious and conscious then? It seems as if you are saying that without conscious thought there can be to actions. A squirrel may desire an acorn unconsciously but it would require conscious thought for that squirrel to get an acorn.

 

Yes, of course they do...if their brain's have structural components that generate functions comparable to the our human brain. What I'm saying is that we cannot engage in any responses without the initial parameters our conscious sets. That squirrel would not desire that acorn without the initial conscious perception of knowing what an acorn is and that it's delicious.

[Ten oz]

 

Yes, of course they do...if their brain's have structural components that generate functions comparable to the our human brain. What I'm saying is that we cannot engage in any responses without the initial parameters our conscious sets. That squirrel would not desire that acorn without the initial conscious perception of knowing what an acorn is and that it's delicious.

That can be known unconsciously. Identification doesn't require conscious thought in my opinion. When I see green lawn grass I don't consciously tell myself "oh, that is lawn grass". One can be aware of things without needing to think and rationalize.

 

Conscious, unconscious, subconscious or what have you are all forms of conscioussness.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

But the subconscious being in control, allows a person to not take responsibility for their actions, as a point of focus player. Like the devil made me do it.

 

So, I do not buy it.

,

Sure we are driven by subconscious currents, but, they are deep and strong, and inform our decisions, good and bad. Our brains are very complex and millions and billions of synapses and cells are sending messages to each other. There are such mechanisms as predictive motor controlling parts of the brain that set up the order and strength of firing of motor control signals to the muscles, before the actual firing. Like a "plan", that is then actuated. This is not done consciously, but one can test it by putting their thumb and forefinger 1/2 inch apart and holding a dollar bill with about an inch before a release of the bill would have it drop below the thumb and forefinger. You can release the bill with one hand and catch it with the other, all day long. But have someone else release it and the reflexes can not operate fast enough. Your predictive motor simulator can store and send the required signals with the correct motion of the thumb and forefinger at the right moment to catch the bill, only by sending as well the signals to release.

 

So giving our subconscious mind the driver seat, is sort of like saying the engine really made the decision to drive from VA to NJ yesterday. In my case.

 

While it might be, that our DNA is the real decision maker and our bodies are just the hosts of these devious little spirals of chemicals, I tend to look at it, top down. The whole body/brain/heart complex is a real complex that got to be the way it is through evolution, and is intricately related to the environment in which, and from which, it emerged. There is a real reason for life. Any life, is interested in survival, and in reproduction of its particular form and structure, its pattern, in the form of offspring. At least in most cases a life seems to promote its own survival and or the survival of a closely related form of life.

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

That can be known unconsciously. Identification doesn't require conscious thought in my opinion. When I see green lawn grass I don't consciously tell myself "oh, that is lawn grass". One can be aware of things without needing to think and rationalize.

 

Identification requires prior conscious perception, which is the means by which identification is initially established.

 

Conscious, unconscious, subconscious or what have you are all forms of consciousness.

 

 

All but that last one--subconscious--is an aspect of consciousness relative to brain function. Although some adhere to a colloquial interpretation, it's a type of influence rather than an aspect because subconscious is not a state of brain function. The distinction between unconscious and subconscious, as I so often describe, is analogous to a person and a package--unconscious denote the person while subconscious describes the package that person either receives or delivers.

Edited May 15, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

But the subconscious being in control, allows a person to not take responsibility for their actions, as a point of focus player. Like the devil made me do it.

 

So, I do not buy it.

,

Sure we are driven by subconscious currents, but, they are deep and strong, and inform our decisions, good and bad. Our brains are very complex and millions and billions of synapses and cells are sending messages to each other. There are such mechanisms as predictive motor controlling parts of the brain that set up the order and strength of firing of motor control signals to the muscles, before the actual firing. Like a "plan", that is then actuated. This is not done consciously, but one can test it by putting their thumb and forefinger 1/2 inch apart and holding a dollar bill with about an inch before a release of the bill would have it drop below the thumb and forefinger. You can release the bill with one hand and catch it with the other, all day long. But have someone else release it and the reflexes can not operate fast enough. Your predictive motor simulator can store and send the required signals with the correct motion of the thumb and forefinger at the right moment to catch the bill, only by sending as well the signals to release.

 

So giving our subconscious mind the driver seat, is sort of like saying the engine really made the decision to drive from VA to NJ yesterday. In my case.

 

While it might be, that our DNA is the real decision maker and our bodies are just the hosts of these devious little spirals of chemicals, I tend to look at it, top down. The whole body/brain/heart complex is a real complex that got to be the way it is through evolution, and is intricately related to the environment in which, and from which, it emerged. There is a real reason for life. Any life, is interested in survival, and in reproduction of its particular form and structure, its pattern, in the form of offspring. At least in most cases a life seems to promote its own survival and or the survival of a closely related form of life.

 

Regards, TAR

My conscious, unconscious, subconscious, etc is all in my brain. My brain is still 100% responsible. I fail to see how ones unconscious being in control shifts responsibility.

Plus responsibility is merely a human concept. natural selection doesn't care about the concept of responsibility.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Shifts responsibility in the sense of for instance you are fighting with your spouse over who left the frig open, when subconsciously you are upset that your spouse does not have a job that pays more.

 

Regards, TAR