The Unconscious Supercomputer

[sunspot]

The current estimate is that we (ego-consciousness) use from 1-10% of the brain. The other 90-99% is not brain dead, but is fully functional but at an unconscious level.

 

Let me give an example. One can walk to the fridge and get a drink. That is something very easy to do, even a 2 year old can do it. If one did the very same thing, while having to consciously manipulate and coordinate every needed muscle to do this simple task, it would take a long time or else the movement would be very robotic in an attempt to simplify the task.

 

The ego is like a computer terminal that can think in the command line, "get a drink" and the unconscious supercomputer takes care of all the background tasks needed to make this an easy task. One only has to look at robotics trying to simulate the smooth fluid motion of humans, the legions of scientist required to get it to sort of work, and one should be able to realize how much processing is going on, unconsciously, behind the scenes for even a simple movement command line.

 

If anyone is watching the Olympics, what one is seeing is the result of years of training. In this case, the repetition, via the ego terminal, is storing data in the brain. One does not have to remember every practice, since the repetition will store data unconsciously.The unconscious supercomputer makes use of this data, eventually allowing these complex motions to become very fluid, i.e., second nature or unconscious. Without the training, the unconscious supercomputer could not just do this, but rather needs repetitive input by the ego terminal so it can gather all the needed data for an extrapolation from its repetiore of movement. Usually the Gold Metallist, don't over-stir at the terminal level, but let the unconscious run the show. The ego only needs to outline the event, with the bulk of the processing done at an unconscious level.

 

If one looks at a downhill skier, if they were to hit a bad spot on the course, the ego does not have enough time, 0.1sec, to be able to make all the needed muscular and balance adjustments, so he/she can recover balance, not fall, and continue the event. The uniqueness of the circumstance and course makes it very hard to practice every situation. This is where a larger data set of practice and an unconscious extrapolation is able to occur, in a fraction of sec, to allow all the needed complex adjustments.

 

Although it is fairly obvious how the unconscious supercomputer controls all the subtety of movement, it is less obvious when it comes to thinking. For example, if one was listening to a lecture, ideas and questions will often pop into one's head in an instant. One does not have enough time to go through a long logical analysis to formulate this idea. Depending on the ego stored terminal input (learning), will determine the types of ideas of questions that will pop up. This is the data set that the supercomputer has available for processing and extrapolation.

 

If we look at someone like Thomas Edison. He was someone who didn't sleep in a normal way, but rather took naps all day long. This would shut off his ego terminal, briefly, so his unconscious supercomputer could process the data he had been thinking about. When he would awaken a new idea or stategy would often pop into his head. He would massage this hunch with logic, his knowledge of science, his experiments, thereby reprogramming his conscious and unconscious memory grids with a combination of conscious and massged unconscious data. His unconscious supercomputer would then extrapolate from this new data set to create new insight and hunches. It was not pure logic or reading alone that made him such a prolific inventor. There just was not enough time for the ego terminal to turn around the inventions at the speed he did, especially since he usally work alone with only an assistant to run experiments. He tapped into the supercomputer part of his brain.

 

Connecting to the unconscious supercomputer really should be the goal of phychology.

[whap2005]

This is interesting, but I'm not sure it’s entirely correct. We do not "think" when we are asleep. Sleep is intricate part in committing the input we absorb during the day to long term memory, but there is no actual thinking going on when we are asleep. If you really want to know why our brains are so powerful, you need to look into the theory of quantum conciseness. The neurons in our brain are made up of carbon based microtubules which have a quantum property to them. The theory works on premise that our brain, like the rest of the universe, exists both in relative and quantum space on a subatomic level (Just like a quantum supercomputer does). Check out this link which explains more:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The current estimate is that we (ego-consciousness) use from 1-10% of the brain. The other 90-99% is not brain dead, but is fully functional but at an unconscious level.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

The basis of your entire post is an urban legend.

[JustStuit]

I always thought that was unreasonable and rather decieving.

[bascule]

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

The basis of your entire post is an urban legend.

 

THANK YOU!

 

That's been my most hated myth.

 

Neocortical columns comprise 80% of your brain (by weight) [so sez Wikipedia (gasp' date=' insert ad hominem here!) and the Blue Brain Project]

 

The neocortex ballooned substantially in humans, to the point that our brains are 6 times as large as we would expect them to be for our body weight with the set of all mammals as the baseline.

 

This got to the point that natural selection had to come up with clever contrivances so that we could be born with a head large enough to house such a massive brain (using a system of skull plates which fuse after birth) and still fit through a mother's birth canal which had to be designed so its owner could still run fast enough to escape predators using a newly discovered bipedial gait. It was all part of the price humans had to pay to have such enormous brains, but they've certainly served us well.

 

Would natural selection really go to all that effort for us to have such massive brains if we only used 10% of them?

[sunspot]

The 10% estimate is for the conscious mind. The rest of the brain still works but does so at an unconscious level. As to the point that the unconscious doe not work while asleep, I remember years ago working on theories during the day and dreaming about them at night. It was like the unconscious was trying to help resolve my obsession. The next day, I would have a fresh angle to proceed.

 

Getting back to the terminal/supercomputer analogy, the ego is more than just a terminal; it is like a PC that is also a terminal. We can think command lines, for example to the body, and get coordinated responses. But the ego PC can also process data directly with logic. The creative side of us makes use of the unconscious processing from the supercomputer aspect of the brain but this output is dependant on PC input.

 

The logical extrapolations from the supercomputer are dependant on the data input stemming from the ego terminal. For example, if one went into the Amazon jungle to find a lost tribe, they would have developed ideas for how the universe was formed. Their data is limited to what the eyes can see and the cultural traditions that they may have. This will restrict the supercomputer to very limited intuititions of the universe.

 

If one is part of western culture, science education vastly increases the data input at the PC allowing more complex extrapolations. But even western education is not uniform. There is a saying the less one knows the more that they think they know. What this means, in practical terms, is the extra data become the basis for creative extrapolation that can extend beyond the Amazom tribe. However, the creative extrapolation is not always confined to the practical constraints of known knowledge.

 

This is where the expert comes in. There is another saying, that the more one knows the less that they realize they know. The expert not only knows the accepted theory but also the theoretical. If he or she is honest with themsevles they realizes the limitations and the inconsistencies. The full data set partially cancells itself out making creative extrapolation more difficult or narrowed down a particular path which is the best compromise. If an expert is biased, by their own pet theory, the data input set is also somewhat biased allowing creative extrapolation down their favorite path.

 

In science, one is not allowed to directly use their creative extrapolations. One is required to investigate the conclusion and create a rational data set that allows others to input the data set, at the terminal level, such that their supercomputer can reach the same level of creative confidence. Science is maintained at the terminal level, where the playing field is more equal. Science is able to simulate the unconscious supercomputer via networking ego PC's. The task is spread out across the network, with some expert or panel of experts playing the role of router.

 

The unconscious supercompter works the same way. In that there is a central router that integrates the unconscious neural network inplicit of the supercomputer. This router is called the inner self. It distributes tasks across a wide range of specialized portions of the brain. Like any network, it is limited by the integrity of its parts. This hints at the practical problem of tapping into the unconscious supercomputer. Some sub-stations of the network are often running programs of their own, others are cluttered with snoopware or even viruses, etc.. The net affect is that one needs to tweak the various aspects of the network before one can get the supercomputer running smoothly and reliably.

 

Religion sensed this virus problem and made such any such attempt taboo. Science has carried over this traditon because it realizes the network is often contaminated with personal eccentricities making the extraplations tainted with personal and cliquish output. To make the PC-supercomputer inteface work, the first step needs to be to address aspects of the network that have extrapolated irrational data input from the ego. For example if one is motivated by phobia, a natural extrapolation from PC data input will be tainted by this substation on the supercompter network. The output will be distorted by the subroutine.

 

In bible tradition, Christ left behind the spirit of truth, which almost appears to describe the supercomputer aspect of the unconscious. But the Chuch has played this down, because they realize that there is often a darkside to human nature, i.e., many substations are tainted, making the final data output less than truth. Science sees it the say way. Both hit it right on. But that does not mean it is impossible.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The 10% estimate is for the conscious mind. The rest of the brain still works but does so at an unconscious level.

Says who?

 

Did you read my link?

[bascule]

The 10% estimate is for the conscious mind.

 

According to most contemporary scientific theories, consciousness is a thalamocortical effect:

 

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Table_of_theories

 

 

Given that the neocortex comprises 80% of the brain's mass (which I stated and cited earlier), at LEAST 80% of the brain is devoted to consciousness (since that 80% figure doesn't include the thalamus)

[GeminiinimeG]

Sunspot seems to be right, we do not use up all of our brain for thinking, the 10 percent estimate says the average is 10 percent for all people doesnt it? so if it is 10 percent average, that means physisists and such would use up way more power for tought and athletes would still use up the same ammount but for a different action. This is what i think on the matter but I really havent studied this much and dont know the facts, just blurted what I think really quick

[bascule]

Sunspot seems to be right, we do not use up all of our brain for thinking, the 10 percent estimate says the average is 10 percent for all people doesnt it?

 

NO, READ: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

 

so if it is 10 percent average, that means physisists and such would use up way more power for tought

 

Than who?

 

and athletes would still use up the same ammount but for a different action.

 

Okay, so who gets the short end of the stick here?

 

This is what i think on the matter but I really havent studied this much and dont know the facts, just blurted what I think really quick

 

If you think you only use 10% of your brain, chances are you just might.

[sunspot]

The problem with any estimate of conscious brain use is that it is hard to separate what is fully under conscious control and what is being processed at an unconscious level. If I was to walk, chew bubble gum, and fantasize amount a girl I just met, and someone was to wire me up and measure my brain activity, it would look like my whole brain is working. But I am not thinking about walking or chewing gum. While the fantasy may be extrapolating itself into love and marriage. The ego is feeding these neural loops, but the bulk of the processing is primarily unconscious.

 

The uniformity of human nature seems to imply that our unconscious supercomputers are wired very similarly. The differences between humans is more at the PC/terminal input/output level. In other words, if one was a professional criminal, their data input is based on criminal activity. The supercomputer merely extrapolates the input, allowing the criminal to improve with time. I am not saying criminal behavior is good from a moral or social value point of view, but only the unconscious supercomputer organizes and extrapolates in ways that are independant of data input. The criminal has to de-program themselves of moral/social restraint to slant the output in the direction that is beneficial to them. The good citizen will program themselves in a way that makes them more naturally (unconsciously) law abiding.

 

Law is a unique type of programming/PC input. In other words, to really know a law one needs to know both the good and bad side of the law. For example, one should not kill. For this law to make sense at a deep level one almost needs to empathize with a victim. The net result is that law causes the ego/terminal to input two sets of data into the supercomputer for organization and extrapolation, i.e., good and bad. In Christian tradition, Christ and Satan symbolize and epitimize these two unconscious data organizations and extrapolations stemming from law. In other words, the Devil is everything that is bad both purely and even partially.

 

I am not trying to be religious but I bring this symbolism up because it contains wisdom and understanding of how the supercomputer organizes the two sided law coin in the brain. They do not just cancel being opposite, but rather become two separate data organizations. This is why it is very common in the history of religion for people who preach the strictest good often become cruel and evil. Eventually, the repression of the darkside data organization of law comes to the surface and the ego begins to feed into its data extrapolation. Nowadays, morality is much less repressive thereby causing the potential of the dark-side organization not exceed the ego's ability to control it. One may still be tempted by its natural logical extrapolation, but has some choice as to how they will act.

 

If one looks into the teachings Christ and the earliest Christian Church leaders, they seem to understand how law was organized in the brain. " I would not have known about evil, if the law did not teach me. Through law comes the knowledge of sin" What they tried to teach was that law of commandments contained in ordanances was both the solution and the root of the evil within human nature. They taught love and faith, thereby not causing the ego PC to program the dual potential of good and evil into the unconscious supercomputer. But history shows that law was reintroduced perpetuating the problem. This was a practical choice since the data organization was already there and to free one from law of good and evil would have unleased the darkside data organization.

 

The problem with developing a rapport with the supercomputer is that one needs to confront and neutralize this and other data integrations. The data organization of moral law has a very long history and it is part of learned behavior and tradition. The middle ages symbolism of the knight having to go into the cave and fight the dragon to steal its treasure is quite appropriate. The sword is reason and logic with which one can kill the beast, but one also needs a shield for protection against its fire (darkside obsession that can loop the ego PC). This is done with knowledge of how these things are organized.

[reverse]

Ok so suppose it's like saying that we only use one of ten blades in a Swiss army knife at a time.

 

What are the different mental blades

and which blade gets used the most

and what situations do we use each blade for.

 

Generally speaking that is.

[sunspot]

If one looks at animals, they are essentially a supercomputer without any ego terminal/PC. Within any species there is characteristic behavior with some range of variety around this core set. Within their supercomputer is some basic personality software which defines the range of their behavior. It appears to be wired at birth and extrapolates from there, via individual data input, to create some variety. The supercomputer using this personality software, often creates a type of learning potential that causes them to watch and learn from similar animals, especially the parents.

 

In certain eco-systems, where everything is balanced, the behavior can become fairly uniform. On the other hand, it is not uncommon when higher animals are driven from their controlled environment, into a new environment, the personality software is able to incorporate the new data, allowing them, for example, to change their diet. The supercomputer is in a constant state of extrapolation, with the same data over and over either creating habit or new ways to do the same thing. New data can change the old habits leading to pertubations within the behavior set.

 

Intelligent domestic animals, especially dogs and horses are wired slightly differently than wild animals. Their supercomputers can be accessed via a remote terminal. Humans can make a dog more than what the dog would be on their own by teaching them. They will retain their natural personality software, but can accept external command lines to convert natural behavior into something more or less. The dog can be turned into a helper or into a nervous wreck.

 

Modern humans have substantial control at the PC/terminal level to the point where the supercomputer may not seem to exist. This was not always the case. If one extrapolates between an intellegent domestic animal and a modern human, it would imply an intermediate state, somewhere back in time, where humans who were sort of a like a domestic animal that had a weakly powered ego/terminal that was not yet a PC (free will). In other words, their ego functioned via both a remote terminal and a weak terminal.

 

The mythology of ancient cultures seems like a fantasy world to modern minds. However, it did not reflect real external phenomena, like aliens. Rather internally generated sets of projections which stemmed from their supercomputer. In other words, their supercomputer was extrapolating all the new social data, creating projections which overlayed reality. These projections were from an internally generated remote terminal for the ego. These projections overlapped the real sensory input going into the fledgling ego terminal. The sun rode a chariot across the sky. Their ego terminal then remembers this double density data, reinforcing and even adding further to the data. This allowed the supercomputer to extrapolate further, leading to further remote inductions onto the ego. The process strengthened the ego until it finally become a PC.

 

If one looks at ancient mythology it advanced in sohishication as time went on. For example, the earliest cultures were often matriarchal and only later became patriarchal. As culture became more sophisicated so did the date input stemming from the ego terminal. The supercomputer organized the increasnigly complex social, natural and projection data into increasingly specialized data organizations for better/easier extrapolation. The shift to montheism was important in that it indicated that in the center of this variety of organization was the network router; the inner self. I am not saying God does or doesn't exist only that either way the supercomputer was evolving.

 

A modern person is highly integrated. But in ancient times, each of the gods of mythology often had its own cult following. This would have caused personality specialization. If one was into say Mars they might become a warrior. Venus might help the prostitute, etc..,In a social evolutionary sense this was acutally quite practical, since one could learn all aspects of humanity via watching all the specialized parts within culture in action. Today we do this with books and movies. The data helps fill in the personality software.

[bascule]

The problem with any estimate of conscious brain use is that it is hard to separate what is fully under conscious control and what is being processed at an unconscious level.

 

Let's try this again: consciousness is a thalamocortical process. Your neocortex comprises 80% of your brain. Therefore, at least 80% of your brain is devoted to consciousness.

 

If I was to walk, chew bubble gum, and fantasize amount a girl I just met, and someone was to wire me up and measure my brain activity, it would look like my whole brain is working. But I am not thinking about walking or chewing gum.

 

No, that's just fixed action patterns being executed by your cerebellum. Your neocortex still comprises 80% of your brain. Consciousness needs a lot of computing power.

 

Can you please give up already? You're wrong, and no matter how you want to worm your way around it, we use our entire brains, and at least 80% of our brain is devoted to consciousness.

[reverse]

so..is the word "conscious" interchangeable with the words "self aware"

 

so does that mean animals are less self aware than us...

 

or that babies are of a lower order of awareness.

 

what exactly are the implications?

[reverse]

 

Can you please give up already? You're wrong' date=' and no matter how you want to worm your way around it, we use our entire brains, and at least 80% of our brain is devoted to consciousness.[/quote']

 

I'm not buying this, show me data.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Let's try this again: consciousness is a thalamocortical process. Your neocortex comprises 80% of your brain. Therefore, at least 80% of your brain is devoted to consciousness.

I think sunspot's point is only 10% of that is used at a time (as not all 80% needs to work at once), although this has been disproved by Snopes and others.

[reverse]

The reason I’m not buy into this 80% reality processing idea…

is that you would need to show that while asleep only 20% activity is occurring.

 

I thought that the brain had a merry old work out during dreaming.

 

What’s the best place to look for contradictory data?

[Xyph]

so does that mean animals are less self aware than us...

 

or that babies are of a lower order of awareness.

Obviously. Is this something you would doubt?

[ashennell]

I have met many people who believe the old 10% myth. I always try and convince them that it is indeed a myth. However, in the cortex the vast majority of the cells are support cells that provide insulation to the neural processes and help with biological functions rather than computational ones. So in some sense it might be accurate to say that only 10-20% of the cortical mass is used for coputation although I doubt this is equivalent in any sense to what people mean when they spout out this particular urban legend - it is still functional.

 

It seems clear that sunspot means something different, conscious versus unconscious processing. I would prefer to use the terms attended versus non-attened processing. This distinction seems to be a fundamental consequence of the mode of operation of the thalmocortex. However, measuring the percentage or attened versus un-attended processing is probably not a useful way of understanding what is happening. These two types of processing are not separate at all - more like the opposite sides of the same coin.

 

There are some nice little experiments that show that we constantly revise our own memory of what we have just been conscious of anyway (see Dennet) so you can't really be sure of your own subjective experience.

 

However, you are right about automating sequences of actions and perceptual chunking - procedural learning basically. This seems to occur in the cortex and not just in the cerebellum. It is also thougtht that the basal ganglia is inportant in organising our action sequences.

 

I'm not sure what a ego terminal is. Is it not just a desktop for your homunculus?

[reverse]

Obviously. Is this something you would doubt?

 

Depends on the definition of consciousness…

 

I looked it up in Wiki just now and was surprised to find that my two immediate questions were exactly mentioned in the article.

[sunspot]

The distinction I am trying to make was pointed out by ashennell, that there are both conscious and unconscious processing going on at the same time. These often coodinate to make it hard to know what is what. The philosophy of science indirectly helps point out the difference with respect to thought processing. If one comes up with a theory about something, science will not bite unless conscious action is taken to prove the theory with data, math, or at least with reference to other people's already accepted work. The theory popped up from the unconscious supercomputer in a flash to become conscious. The long set of procedures, that may take months or longer, to substantiate the theory is the slower processing rate at the ego/pc level. If the final theory turns out to be correct/acceptable, one should be able to get an idea of the different processing rates at both the conscious and unconscious levels.

 

Science intuitively knows the practical problems with just excepting supercomputer output from the unconscious mind because this supercomputer is also processing irrational data from culture, tradition and personal relationships. The theory can often be based on all these things, being a combination of logical extrapolation and irrational personal/cultural bias. It was not cooincidental that the Big Bang theory came not too long after the development of the Big Bomb (hydrogen bomb). The ego/PC's of the original creators of this theory had to go back and develop this theory over many years with data and the acceptable ego/PC works of others. The original idea is still in a state of ego/PC processing fifty years later and is being confronted with other supercomputer ideas that are being massaged at the ego/pc level.

 

The conscious processing power defined by the human brain is a combination of the ego/PC and the amount of conscious access time one has to their personal supercomputer. Someone who is very procedure orientated probably has a very strong ego/pc. Those who fly by the seat of their pants may have a weaker ego/PC by more terminal access to their supercomputer.

[sunspot]

I would like to use this background to discuss a debate in culture; evolution versus creation. Both positions are firmly defended with the position of science having the advantage of hard data (fossils) which are dated way before the bible was written. The Creationists are working under the assumption of the truth of the bible, i.e., their data set. These are two different data inputs at the ego/PC level lead to two very different supercomputer extrapolations. The supercomputer does not discriminate, like the ego/PC, it merely extrapolates the input data and give one an intuitive output, i.e., a gut feeling of the validity of their position. This gut feeling is a validation that the supercomputer has produced a result, but that result is only as good as the data input and one's ability to interpret the result.

 

But if we look at both positions, neither position is at total peace, rather each is able to push the other's buttons. This psychological state reflects some inner doubt in both camps with respect to the absolute truth defined by either point of view. In other words, it is easier to fight a rival by knowing one's enemy. As such, both positions have, at some conscious or unconscious level, programmed themselves with the other person's data. This is what is being processed by the supercomputer, i.e., compromise.

 

I my humble opinion the creationsts need a glass of cold water thrown in their face to wake them up. Like it or not, it is not possible to create the physical universe in six days given the state of the art of what science currently knows. As such, this position currently requires sacrificing the independant logic within the ego/PC and having total faith in the supercomputer's results, since the supercomputer is very reliable. But it can only work with the data that is inputted into it.

 

There is another way to interpret Genesis. Genesis is not so much describing the actual physical formation of the universe, but the psychological processes associated with the awakening of the ego/PC. Where humans suddenly see things differenly. This theory is based on two things. First, it is not cooincidental that the oldest known human civilizations begin in the same time frame that the universe was created in the bible; i..e, 6000-7000 years ago. Human civilization was a quantum advancement over migratory tribal culture. Consider the drastic change in logistics requirement needed to support the larger population density. This did not happen slowly over millions of years but suddenly happened in recent history and humans have been advancing quickly since then.

 

The second point is in the bible itself. It is connected to the story of Cain and Abel, where Cain kills Abel. Cain was the tiller of the soil and Abel the herder of animals. Cain killing Abel shows farming superseding migratory animal herding allowing culture to begin. When Cain was about to be exiled he is afraid and says" whoever shall come upon me shall kill me". The question is, who were these whoevers, if only Adam, Eve and Cain were on the earth at that time. It was the migratory prehumans stemming from the last Ice Age who were still tribal and had not yet reached the level of civilization. God gives Cain a sign for protection. It is unclear what becomes of Cain but he probably used his higher potential to advance the prehuman, i.e., teaching them farming and such.

 

The story of genesis is describing the awakening of modern human consciousness, seeing the world around it for the first time. The first day there is light from the darkness of instinctive supercomputer operation. The earth forms in the sense that all of a sudden one begins to notice its distinctions from the sky or heavens. The water separating from the water may be an awareness that the ocean is distinct from the sky and that rain or water also falls from the sky. One then begins to notice all the plants and the animals. In other words, if one is preoccupied, they do not often take the time to smell the roses, the roses remain unconscious. With the sudden advancement of the ego/PC, the preoccupation with instinct from the supercomputer is lowered and all of a sudden the new ego/PC begins to see the world around it for the first time.

 

In bible tradition Adam is created on the second day. The first day was a transition time that was building the ego/PC. Adam before Even suggests this ego/PC progression appearing first in men than women. This would make sense since the females needed instinct for caring of the young and would retain natural instinct longer. The tradition of Adam living 1000 years, may be a metaphor of this early state of ego/PC development lasting 1000 years until it reached the next level, i.e., spirit of the times for 1000 years.

 

The tradition of Adam and Even eating the forbidden fruit and leaving paradise is implicit of the ego/PC finally stabilized. This new state allows the ego to run its own programs apart from the supercomputer. I guess we call it free will. The tree of life is the supercomputer. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the foundation of logic and what makes the ego/PC become independant. In other words, laws of good and evil helps create cause and affect relationships. It was probably fear of punishment that helped reinforce ego consciousness of these first cultural cause and affect relationships.

 

With the evolution of the ego/PC, culture improves. At the same time, being able to run programs apart from the supercomputer led to all types of random and repepitive behavioral trial baloons. It also gave one a will or separate processing ability, apart from the output stemming from the supercomputer. The supercomputer will continue to process the new data leading to an increasing variety of behavior and understanding leading to a gradual departure from instinct.

 

If one goes forward, the story of Noah and the Ark is also a metaphor of another transition time. Noah or this transtion also lasted a 1000 years. It show a wild and crazy culture being drowned. If I was to guess the new ego/PC's, maybe running maybe at the DOS level, which is harder for the amateur to work properly, generating all kinds of random output data, setting the foundation of what was socially possible at the time. God telling Noah to collect two of each type of animal (male/female) is symbolic of the supercomputer, sorting this randon data into 2-D data (cause and affect) using the natural (animal) instincts. It was happening in both the males and females. The prcessed happened in a self contained type of way(ark). Until the flood ended. It was not a social movement but occurred individually for very few.

 

Maybe a good analogy could be a drug addict, who began his adventure experimenting and having fun. He slowly goes down the hill from there, until the suddenly hits rock bottom (flood). Often for some (Noah), but not eveyone (drown), there is a rebirth into a more healthy state of mind. This new state of mind is a blend of wisdom of experience and a healthy awareness/lifestyle, which is more than just a healthy awareness/lifestyle. The Noah transition probably strengthened the logical foundation of the ego/PC away from the previous generation of random cultural PC data. This probably reflected humans becoming more culturally unified around healthier living by being more causual and less random statisitical.

[Royston]

This has what to do with psychiatry and psychology ? Don't answer that, for the love of God, don't answer that !

 

Sunspot, you are a legend - perhaps you should invent the perpetual drivel machine. I'm sorry to be harsh, but most people give up about 200 posts earlier than you...please listen to reason.

 

I've written some utter tripe on SFN as well, but I listen to what other people have to say, and take advice and move on...I suggest you do the same.

[reverse]

Sunspot,

 

I think you might be on to something.

 

But any idea should be able to be expressed simply in a way that a wide audience can understand.