Consciousness

[sunspot]

One of the structural flaws with psycho-theory is connected to the lack of concensus understanding of what consciousness is. This should be the foundation of the mind since it is what interfaces the personality to the brain and to the biochemistry of the brain. Without such basic understanding one can not begin any theory at step one. This might explain why most consciousness theory is empirical instead of rational. In all due respect, empirical is useful because it lets the dice fall where they may without requiring concensus understanding of consciousness.

 

I would like to attempt to deduce the nature of consciousness from my own studies and observations. The first thing one would expect is that consciousness should require a power source to be able define free will. The most likely source of energy is connected to brain waves, i.e., background firing of neurons. For example, if one is considered brain dead there are no observed brain waves and consciousness is gone (both conscious and unconscious mind lose power). Sleep will cut off or reduce the power supply to the ego, but unconscious processes still occur. This suggests a threshold brain power level to fully support ego consciousness.

 

Studies have shown, that specific regions of the brain have specific consciousness function. The ego or conscious mind, can willfully move around the brain and cause certain regions of the brain to show higher neural activity. For example, one can focus their attention on the eyes or imagination and shift the primary area of the brain that is being used.

 

The brain waves are brain-wide and therefore can integrate the entire brain via an ionic/chemical/energy matrix. This brain wide matrix provides a reasonable way for consciousness to move anywhere within the brain, focus the energy potential and induce neural activity in very specific regions of the brain.

 

Beyond the generic background neuron firing of brain waves, the neural memory is also very specific to the individual. One would logically expect that the universal generic background firing is wired into the memories associated with personal memory. In other words, with the power supply of consciousness brain wide and providing energy needed for integrated brain operation, it is reasonable that the neural based power supply would extrapolate personal memory from this generic base, making consciousness both generic and personal in nature. We are all collective human and unique at the same time.

 

Another thing we know is that the creation of short term memory and emotional valence stem from the limbic system located in the center of the brain. The result that appears is that each aspect of personal memory will have specific emotional valence. This may be how the brain integrates similar memory. For example, if one feels hunger, consciousness will use the whole brain, but will narrow its memory focus around the needs of the hunger potential. The same can be said for fear, love, etc.,This observation suggests the personal memory is stored as layers, where each layer is loosely organized around specific emotional potential.

 

There are two logical ways to activate layers of memory. This can occur via the blood supply and via the cerebral spinal fluid. With both interfaced to the entire brain, they can both cause universal brain potentials. This fires the specific personal layer of memory while also alterring the universal background firing power supply of consciousness. The coordination of the two allows coordinated power and memory focus for the ego. The ego can then move around the brain, within the energy/memory matrix, and use any part of the brain to satisfy the potential.

 

The ego can not only animate structured routines of behavior, but it can also extrapolate memory. For example, one can get ready for work or school in a mindless routine way. One can also reason from simple premises to create complex relationships. The latter implies the ego being up potential of the memories associated with the premises, inducing temporary fluid extrapolation of memory leading to more integrated hardwired neuron branching organization.

 

The former suggest the ego being down potential of the memory organization. Being down potential, it can drain the memory, so to speak, causing specific neuron firing, that becomes structured, i.e, loses branching from all the orginal possibilities. The conclusion stemming from these two observations is that the background firing of the brain is not only providing energy for consciousness but the energy output also defines a wide range of memory potentials. This allows the ego to alter its potential set point. This alternation is related to the ego being able to willfully move between memory layers (different emotional potentials), thereby being up or down potential of an adjacent layer. For example, one can get hungry and begin to think about food, but practical constraints may require putting it off. The ego can shift its set point away from the potential of the hunger layer, altering the brain potential.

 

The last aspect of consciousness functioning is connected to what Carl Jung called the archetypes of the collective unconscious. In modern terms these are personality software common to all humans. These can be viewed as software wired into the background firing of brain waves that are focued by specific brain potentials. For example, falling in love, creates personality dynamics that are collective human, beyond what the ego can create for itself, i.e., the whirlwinds of love. The result is that the dynamics of ego consciousness is both collective and individual, with the individual an extrapolation from the collective. The ego's ability to alter or focus potential allow it to narrow its collective/personal extrapolation while gaining collective energy/propensity from a particular archetype or from the entire range of archetypes. Specialization can narrow the range while generalization expand the range of personality software used.

[Cognition]

One of the structural flaws with psycho-theory is connected to the lack of concensus understanding of what consciousness is. This should be the foundation of the mind since it is what interfaces the personality to the brain and to the biochemistry of the brain. Without such basic understanding one can not begin any theory at step one. This might explain why most consciousness theory is empirical instead of rational. In all due respect, empirical is useful because it lets the dice fall where they may without requiring concensus understanding of consciousness.

 

I read all this and it sounds nice, although to freudian flavoured. But there are a few things I do not understand. We already have an understanding of the link between personality and brain, so when you talk about "the interface" it seems that you are saying our personality is one entity apart from the brain entity. That sounds dualistic.

Furthermore, I think that scientific psychology is empirical, because it seems so very hard to say what Consciousness IS, and the only way to explore the brain is the empirical way. Are you saying that a rational analysis of consciousness would give us greater understanding as to what it "IS" (ontologically?)

 

.....I would like to attempt to deduce the nature of consciousness from my own studies and observations.....

 

I read your text and I am not 1 nanometer closer to understanding what consciousness is......

 

The ego or conscious mind, can willfully move around the brain and cause certain regions of the brain to show higher neural activity.

 

I hope you are not saying that consciousness is different from brain function, and that this "thing" is causal.

[sunspot]

I am saying that consciousness is connected to brain function and is in a sense confined to what the brain is and can do. However, creativity shows that consciousness can extrapolate something new from what is hardwired in the brain, to create new memories that were not originally there. In that respect, it is more than the sum of its parts. My fluid energy model of consciousness satisfies both criteria at the same time; fixed neuron firing creating a fluid energy matrix that has some degree of potential beyond the fixed.

 

With respect to your second point about consciousness able to move around the brain, this is based on the existing correlation between brain function and brain location. That data was generated by having people do things and see where in the brain consciousness is being focused, and/or by using electrical current to trigger parts of the brain to see what the result it. This ability to move around the brain and to center itself in particular areas of the brain, rseems to imply that consciousness is different than fixed brain matter, to be able to create a willful disturbance within any particular region. I attributed this to consciousness being energy based as a result of background neuron firing, with this same brainwide background firing providing an energy matrix for its mobility.

 

With respect to the first comment, the model is actually more based on Jungian psychology. He studied collective human phenomena, which I saw as the best starting point for studying consciousness; consciousness should be collective and generic for all humans. I liked Jung best because he did not limit human motivation to just pleasure, desire, fear, pain or whatever. Rather, his theory of the archetypes includes all these levels of human motivation and in that respect encompasses/includes the more narrowed orientations.

 

Regarding the point about empiricsm, this is true if ones approach to conscious research is from the outside. If one begins from the inside and watches what goes on within oneself can see a more logical order. In other words, the brain and consciousness does not have to be a black box. If one opens the black box and looks inside one can get direct data, since every human brain should generate the same basic generic data. As an analogy, one can make an empirical correlation of a toothache by watching others. Or one can have a toothache and draw reality conclusions.

[bascule]

Uhoh, sunspot is attempting to delve into the nature of consciousness...

 

This might explain why most consciousness theory is empirical instead of rational. In all due respect' date=' empirical is useful because it lets the dice fall where they may without requiring concensus understanding of consciousness.

 

I would like to attempt to deduce the nature of consciousness from my own studies and observations.[/quote']

 

Uhh...

 

I think that scientific psychology is empirical, because it seems so very hard to say what Consciousness IS, and the only way to explore the brain is the empirical way.

 

Bingo. Attempting to study the nature of consciousness from within is what Dennett describes as "autophenomenology" which is a fundamentally unscientific and ultimately fruitless process. The main reason lies in such things as individual variability and so many of the processes by which consciousness operates being essentially hidden to the conscious process itself (i.e. unconscious processes fuel thought).

 

Throughout his book he develops his model based on "heterophenomenology", using scientific studies into what people experience when subjected to various types of stimuli, and drawing conclusions about how these experiences (which are usually forms of sensory/conscious misinterpretation of what's really happening in the outside world) can give us insights into the operation of consciousness itself.

 

As for consciousness "moving around the brain", well, perhaps the neocortical columns that are coming up with the ideas that influence behavior are constantly changing. But at the very least, the cortex is "home" to consciousness, although the rest of the brain is performing all sorts of very important tasks without which consciousness wouldn't function. It's for this reason that Dennett refuses to relegate consciousness to a single part of the brain.

[sunspot]

I agree with you that many unconscious processes are hidden and can have an impact of perception. This is true for both empiricism and autophenomenology. If it was not true for empiricsm, there would only be one orientation of psychology and only one interpretation of the empirical data. If empiricists payed more attention to their own unconscious processes there would not be so many ways to view the same data.

 

As far as autophenomenology, if one takes this approach long enough personal psychology is less of a problem since that data will get redundant enough to be seen through. Below that outer layer of the onion is collective human phenomena. This is where the good stuff is. Carl Jung did a lot of work mapping these software and correlating them to collective human thought such as mythology and religion. These tell us a lot about the collective human psyche.

[bascule]

I agree with you that many unconscious processes are hidden and can have an impact of perception. This is true for both empiricism and autophenomenology.

 

Careful there, Empiricism is the belief that sensory experience is the source of all knowledge (which is obviously true, since the senses merely represent the input into consciousness and knowledge is a concept which is entirely irrelevant outside of a conscious process)

 

If it was not true for empiricsm, there would only be one orientation of psychology and only one interpretation of the empirical data.

 

You can interpret the data however you want. The important part was that the scientific method was used in obtaining the data (i.e. a hypothesis was formulated, a controlled experiment conducted, and the results and conclusion documented, and in most cases, peer reviewed) When the scientific method is used to obtain information, that information is inherently more reliable than information obtained by other means, which generally consist of such methodologies as "pulling it out of my ass"

 

If empiricists payed more attention to their own unconscious processes there would not be so many ways to view the same data.

 

Actually, neurophysiologists are hard at work studying consciousness in the best empirical means possible: running models of it on computers. See Blue Brain and The CCortex Project.

 

As far as autophenomenology, if one takes this approach long enough personal psychology is less of a problem since that data will get redundant enough to be seen through. Below that outer layer of the onion is collective human phenomena. This is where the good stuff is.

 

Autophenomenology concerns the self-study of only your consciousness. If you're attempting to look at any collective properties of human consciousness, you've already stumbled into the field of heterophenomenology. And at this point, there's only two ways to go about it: use the scientific method, or don't. One generally yields reliable answers (or is at least documented to the point that unreliability can be exposed in the future), the other does not.

 

Carl Jung did a lot of work mapping these software and correlating them to collective human thought such as mythology and religion. These tell us a lot about the collective human psyche.

 

As much as it has been seemingly discredited, I very much espouse Carl Jung's idea of the "collective unconsciousness", specifically as it relates to mapping the a priori brain constructs we are given genetically onto human temperment (i.e. genes control how you behave). This idea now dominates modern psychology, with the Freudian overemphasis of nurture vs. nature having been mostly discredited at this point.

[sunspot]

The Jungian idea of the collective unconscious describes things within the psyche that are common to all humans. As such, any human, theoretically, should be able to map the collective unconscious and this data should be reproduceable by other humans. Between ego consciousness and the collective unconscious is the personal unconscious. If one observes at this upper level, I agree, such observations would lead to endless variety because they are more personal than collective.

 

What is needed to make it reproduceable science is two fold; first one needs to get past the personal unconscious so it can be conscious enough to be factored out of the equation. Jung and most orientations of Psychology do a good job at showing the nature of the personal unconscious so it can be made conscious and factored out of the analysis. Next, one needs to allow the collective phenomena to express and differnetiate itself, naturally, without the power of suggestion, and without too much conscious inhibition. In other words, one must be willing to dissociate their personality, so that their rational consciousness (left side of the brain) can observe all the irrational collective unconscious phenomena (right side of the brain).

 

When I was younger and more fearless, I did such research on myself. I spent the first several years going to therapy and self actualizing so my personal unconsious would be factored out of the equation. After that, I read the collective works of Jung and attempted to extend Jungian psychology by becoming both the scientist and the experiment. In retrospect, I would not do it again nor would I recommend it to anyone unless they had a psycho baby sitter. I had to escape on my own.

 

The many years of experiences are outside the range of the superfiscial science aproaches, making it hard to discuss and share my results. The difficulty is not mine but the bias of tradition and a very real fear. In a round about way I have attempted to summarize what I have learned from the inside out. The one thing that did happen was that I learned how to develop an interactive rapport with the right hemisphere allowing me to make some practical use of the 3-D or spatial memory grid.

[bascule]

The many years of experiences are outside the range of the superfiscial science aproaches

 

i.e. untestable and irreproducible

 

making it hard to discuss and share my results.

 

I'm sure you can find people with a much higher degree of credulity than the scientific community with which to share your ideas.

 

The difficulty is not mine but the bias of tradition and a very real fear.

 

Science wants you to conduct a controlled experiment that's easily reproduced and gives the same results every time (or if certain experiments occasionally give different results, you can explain why)

 

That's all Dennett used to substantiate his "Empirical Theory of Mind" in Consciousness Explained.

 

In a round about way I have attempted to summarize what I have learned from the inside out.

 

Okay, let's see what you have to say...

 

The one thing that did happen was that I learned how to develop an interactive rapport with the right hemisphere

 

Uhhhhhhh, right.

 

How did you know you "develop(ed) an interactive rapport with the right hemisphere"? Were you in an MRI at the time, and noticed increased blood flow to the right hemisphere after you, uhh, asked it a question, or something?

 

allowing me to make some practical use of the 3-D or spatial memory grid.

 

One time I entered a state of deep Transcendental Meditation and spoke to the second incarnation of Buddha. He told me that the only way you can reach Enlightenment is if you eat an egg salad sandwich at the Proper Moment. You can never know when your Proper Moment will come up in life, so the only way to guarantee you will reach enlightenment is to constantly eat egg salad sandwiches.

 

Yes, the above is an example of:

 

Try to relate it to what you're saying and see if you detect a pattern.

[sunspot]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, all of what you said is not BS. There are two types of intellectuals; one that can only repeat the ideas of others and the other who thinks for himself. The first is the safe path, the second opens one up to criticism from those who take the first path. Sorry Bascule, I enjoy the checks and balances. I generate too many ideas to think them all through and I appreciate even the criticism.

[lrokwild]

Anyone familiar with Freud’s models of the mind, more specifically the topographical model? Kind of fits into this thread, I thought maybe someone would be interested in it or knows something about it. I happen to be studying it ATM.

 

Subconscious - Repressed Thoughts

Preconscious - Storage

Conscious - Active Thoughts

 

Does anyone believe that repressed thoughts are primarily repressed because of some negative feeling we have associated them with. Or that they are simply too sadistic and uncomfortable that if we were to think about them we would be so shocked and afraid that we might act out the thoughts that we never let them get into our conscious in the first place?

 

Also, I haven’t got to reading that whole speal sunspot, I read most of it, and most of the stuff I have heard of at one point or another. You sound like you know a lot about biology of the brain and psychology so I will probably be picking your brain more often.

 

I just wanted to add to something you said.

 

We will never be able to fully understand consciousness because we have no way of completely reaching into the subconscious. We have great understanding of the conscious mind, as you have so clearly diagramed in your post sunspot. The problem is, nearly all of those thought processes are being controlled one way or another by our subconscious mind.(psychic determinism).

 

Then of course another problem is perspectives and scientific paradimes, which are really only explanations of something by using our own thoughts to thread isolated bits of information into what we call "facts". Unfortunately there is no such thing as facts.

 

Nonetheless I could agree that our understanding of consciousness is growing at an exponential rate. Unfortunately we will never fully be able to understand it.

[lrokwild]

Ok, read the whole post, very interesting.

 

 

The former suggest the ego being down potential of the memory organization. Being down potential' date=' it can drain the memory, so to speak, causing specific neuron firing, that becomes structured, i.e, loses branching from all the orginal possibilities.

 

[/quote']

 

This has fascinated me as much as anything else in science. The way we are constantly hardwiring our brains and essentially training our brains to form bonds with specific neurons and lose bonds with others. I believe this is called network of association. If we activate one part of the network then it tends to send activation to the rest of the network.

 

Could our unconscious mind be all of these "lost" neurons? They have a "bit" of information on them that we have lost the ability to recall. The brain is like a huge interchanging network of neurons that attach themselves to other neurons and so forth. Is it possible that thoughts can get lost in the tanglement of new thoughts and emotions that we continually experience and take in during waking hours?

 

I don’t know much, but maybe when we try to explain the subconscious we are actually talking about those lost bits of information. Perhaps since our neurons for specific memories are all so close together and could be so close that occasionally... or constantly we get some sort of accidental cross firing and a 3rd "subconscious" thought gets thrown in with the conscious ones but we are unable to consciously tell the difference, but that miss firing is causing us to behave in ways we cant explain? This is also why we are able to progressively reach these "lost" thoughts or "repressed" thoughts by becoming aware of these miss-firings with analytical interpretation and hypnosis and so forth.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this, or should I explain my theory more?

 

Haha, i kind of like this theory

[lrokwild]

The one thing that did happen was that I learned how to develop an interactive rapport with the right hemisphere allowing me to make some practical use of the 3-D or spatial memory grid.

 

Teach me how to do this.....wow

[lrokwild]

Ok' date=' read the whole post, very interesting.

 

 

 

This has fascinated me as much as anything else in science. The way we are constantly hardwiring our brains and essentially training our brains to form bonds with specific neurons and lose bonds with others. I believe this is called network of association. If we activate one part of the network then it tends to send activation to the rest of the network.

 

Could our unconscious mind be all of these "lost" neurons? They have a "bit" of information on them that we have lost the ability to recall. The brain is like a huge interchanging network of neurons that attach themselves to other neurons and so forth. Is it possible that thoughts can get lost in the tanglement of new thoughts and emotions that we continually experience and take in during waking hours?

 

I don’t know much, but maybe when we try to explain the subconscious we are actually talking about those lost bits of information. Perhaps since our neurons for specific memories are all so close together and could be so close that occasionally... or constantly we get some sort of accidental cross firing and a 3rd "subconscious" thought gets thrown in with the conscious ones but we are unable to consciously tell the difference, but that miss firing is causing us to behave in ways we cant explain? This is also why we are able to progressively reach these "lost" thoughts or "repressed" thoughts by becoming aware of these miss-firings with analytical interpretation and hypnosis and so forth.

 

Do you see where I'm going with this, or should I explain my theory more?

 

Haha, i kind of like this theory [/quote']

 

I just wanted to touch on my theory. Not only could the subconscious thought be linked to these lost neurons and the miss firings but perhaps a certain neuron is trying to fire with the wrong chemical. For example some of the normal neurons that fire with dopamine, which create happy feelings accidentally get mixed up with serotonin, which is linked to depression. This might describe patient disorder (bi-polar/manic depression)

[lrokwild]

No one is going to bother challanging my theory? ... or at least give me some feed back... wtf... pansy ass wanna be psychologists

 

Take that... and that... and oh... you got nothing!