Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 124 of 124

Thread: The unconscious mind

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I may be refering to the unconscious in the wrong context, and may be refering to the subconscious, although this is not accepted by conventional standards…if we later experience something we were not conscious of (e.g. subliminal messaging influencing behaviour), then this suggests for a system of which is both cognitive and active during our waking experiences; an unconscious…Whilst dreaming, we may experience data experienced unconscious (Data that is still stored or responded internally during our active conscious perception) and whilst awake, we may experience new input data and commit to an output; an external response.
    If I understand correctly, you are referring to the enormous amount of stimuli—that rushes through our sensory perception system daily—which seemingly escapes our conscious awareness. Most of the sensory experiences of life that enters and influences our realm of conscious activity only reach as far as our instinctive systems. In an instant, our instinctive subsystems evaluate all incoming sensory for its threat potential, which then activates subsequent response systems both cognitive and instinctual. This evaluation of threat likely involves an assessment of how the sensory influence impacts the physical, emotion, and mental wellbeing or status of the body—and this evaluation probably occurs in that order. As a potential threat assessment traverses the hierarchy of this instinctual process, it only activates cognition when a mental response is deemed appropriate.

    Whatever is deemed a threat receives an instinctual response initially, then a cognitive response subsequently. Sensory stimuli that is deemed non-threatening may never reach the cognitive centers of the brain; however, I think the lingering impact or residue of this evaluation process may continue to resonate in brain structure as we enter dream sleep. For example, one may be working feverishly and not notice a familiar aroma wafting in on a breeze through an open window. Instantly, the aroma is determined familiar but not a threat and is, therefore, ignored. Throughout one’s day, one may have thoughts of an earlier time in one’s life and wonder why. Later, after retiring, one dreams of tasting mom’s freshly baked apple pie and, upon waking, one may not realize that an aroma from the previous day inspired the prior day’s thoughts and subsequent dream. This is an example of how conscious stimuli provide a key to unlocking old memories that arise in dream content. It is not that these inaccessible memories are locked in our unconscious; it is that we’ve lost the conscious key to those memories.

    We experience a variety of familiar stimuli daily that influences our conscious behaviors below the threshold of our cognitive awareness. I refer to such stimuli as subconscious influences. Here, subconscious refers to an influence (aroma example). Although such influences may inspire the unconscious processing (dream example) that unlock distant memories, this doesn’t suggest these memories reside in the unconscious.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    In which case, we do have better recollection of distant memories whilst unconscious. If we try to recall specific detail whilst conscious, we experience difficulty in doing so; whilst dreaming - unconscious - we access this memory effortlessly. I don't suggest that we have better access integirty whilst persently conscious; I suggest that whilst conscious, our access to unconscious memory is lacking.
    We experience difficulty unlocking our distant memories while conscious because we have lost the conscious key to accessing those memories. Our unconscious is better at accessing distant memory because it is not encumbered by the physical/material sensory streaming into our conscious mind. Physical/material reality stimulates regions of the conscious brain that are not stimulated during the brain’s unconscious activation. Physicality stimulates the prefrontal lobe of the conscious brain, which is the brain area that mediates our conscious priorities. Most distant memories are a low priority and are not maintained by prefrontal activation. Prefrontal activation, from my study, overrides or overwrite distant memories by setting a higher priority for memories of contemporary value. Because the value of our contemporary memories is of higher priority than our distant memories, we have difficulty getting past the memory blocks that our higher priority, contemporary memories cause. Deactivation of the prefrontal and the priority blocks it imposes, during the dreaming phase of sleep, gives the unconscious greater access to distant memories. Also, because the prefrontal is arguably responsible for repression, its deactivation amid dream sleep gives the unconscious mind greater access to the feelings, thoughts, and experiences that prefrontal function represses.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I agree that the neo cortex is a sophisticated storage device. However, with all the memory stored from within this device, for all which is inaccessible to ourselves, must be considered to be a distinct form of memory to conscious memory (To clarify my perspective, let's refer to memory we (Our consciousness - we) can access as conscious memory) - or unconscious memory (What I commonly see this memory as).
    It seems most likely to me, that what you perceive as unconscious memory is merely those memories made inaccessible by our conscious focus on more recent memories and experiences of higher priority. Our active prefrontal sets this conscious focus and releases it amid dream sleep, thus giving the unconscious greater access to distant memories.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Very interesting - knowledge = awareness. Although I do partially agree, we contain vast amounts of knowledge, and only some of which we are aware of. Awareness to me is of a distinct function and knowledge is the result of awareness over data or information - knowledge is supplementary to consciousness - in my opinion.
    Awareness, in my view, begins with the perception of influence; one cannot be aware without some sensory distinction external to the awareness source. The perception influence begins with self-perception, thus consciousness begins with self-perception. The sensory information flowing from our physical being into the cognitive centers of our brain initiates and shapes our awareness of self. In this way, the data our brain receives first from our physical being, then from our physical environment, forms the basis of consciousness construction by the brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I'm still uncertain as to what you mean by the following: "the nature of quantum consciousness and all the possibilities that idea suggests".
    Our brain collects an enormous amount of sensory information that never reaches the conscious cognitive centers of our brain. Most of that information is low priority and of little value to our daily pursuits and focus. In the absence of the conscious barriers to our cognitive processes, our unconscious has access to the minutest of perceptions and details. Our instinctual systems evolved over the millennia from a quantum state. Theoretically, our unconscious should have access even to the information our instinctual systems collect at a quantum level. Our conscious mind is interested in the “Big Picture”, while our unconscious may have unprecedented access to the details of that picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Again, this is an interesting perspective. However, awareness is awareness; the only way to measure awareness is to pinpoint that of which is responsible for producing awareness (The difficulty here, is how do we validate this; how do we differentiate between data/response and awareness) and compare its capacity to other forms of life that are considered to be self-aware - in my opinion.
    The only type of awareness that we are the slightest bit capable of clearly understanding is the awareness humanity produces. We know this is valid because of the reciprocity of understanding wherein we can cogently convey our experiences to each other. Therefore, the only measure of awareness we can apply to other species with any confidence is the example humanity sets. We know that humanity’s awareness requires a centralized neural structure wherein sensory data is perceived and processed in such a way as to produce behavioral responses independent of instinctual behaviors. With this example in mind, we have a basis for investigating whether other life forms qualify as sentient species. Clearly, in my view, we have enough information to “pinpoint that of which is responsible for producing awareness”.

    I welcome your further thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    If I understand correctly, you are referring to the enormous amount of stimuli—that rushes through our sensory perception system daily—which seemingly escapes our conscious awareness. Most of the sensory experiences of life that enters and influences our realm of conscious activity only reach as far as our instinctive systems. In an instant, our instinctive subsystems evaluate all incoming sensory for its threat potential, which then activates subsequent response systems both cognitive and instinctual. This evaluation of threat likely involves an assessment of how the sensory influence impacts the physical, emotion, and mental wellbeing or status of the body—and this evaluation probably occurs in that order. As a potential threat assessment traverses the hierarchy of this instinctual process, it only activates cognition when a mental response is deemed appropriate.
    Yes, this is what I'm refering to, a cognitive influence upon our conscious perception - a subconscious. Thank you for clarifying my perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Whatever is deemed a threat receives an instinctual response initially, then a cognitive response subsequently. Sensory stimuli that is deemed non-threatening may never reach the cognitive centers of the brain; however, I think the lingering impact or residue of this evaluation process may continue to resonate in brain structure as we enter dream sleep. For example, one may be working feverishly and not notice a familiar aroma wafting in on a breeze through an open window. Instantly, the aroma is determined familiar but not a threat and is, therefore, ignored. Throughout one’s day, one may have thoughts of an earlier time in one’s life and wonder why. Later, after retiring, one dreams of tasting mom’s freshly baked apple pie and, upon waking, one may not realize that an aroma from the previous day inspired the prior day’s thoughts and subsequent dream. This is an example of how conscious stimuli provide a key to unlocking old memories that arise in dream content. It is not that these inaccessible memories are locked in our unconscious; it is that we’ve lost the conscious key to those memories.

    We experience a variety of familiar stimuli daily that influences our conscious behaviors below the threshold of our cognitive awareness. I refer to such stimuli as subconscious influences. Here, subconscious refers to an influence (aroma example). Although such influences may inspire the unconscious processing (dream example) that unlock distant memories, this doesn’t suggest these memories reside in the unconscious.
    I agree with you here. Although initially not so long ago I had thought it was that memories were locked unconscious until recently I had became conscious of many memories that are often inaccessible and sometimes accessible due to changes in cognitive behaviour; I now believe it is our conscious mind that can prevent our access to memories, especially with a lack of confidence or as we mature. It would seem that some form of cortical - cognitive - function is responsible for our lack of access to unconscious memories (e.g. it may be the prefrontal cortex; it would appear for me, that if I attempted to access memories spontanously, they appear in their full clarify; if I try to access them, or if I "think" too hard of the memories, they would appear blurred, false or may not even arise).

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    We experience difficulty unlocking our distant memories while conscious because we have lost the conscious key to accessing those memories. Our unconscious is better at accessing distant memory because it is not encumbered by the physical/material sensory streaming into our conscious mind. Physical/material reality stimulates regions of the conscious brain that are not stimulated during the brain’s unconscious activation. Physicality stimulates the prefrontal lobe of the conscious brain, which is the brain area that mediates our conscious priorities. Most distant memories are a low priority and are not maintained by prefrontal activation. Prefrontal activation, from my study, overrides or overwrite distant memories by setting a higher priority for memories of contemporary value. Because the value of our contemporary memories is of higher priority than our distant memories, we have difficulty getting past the memory blocks that our higher priority, contemporary memories cause. Deactivation of the prefrontal and the priority blocks it imposes, during the dreaming phase of sleep, gives the unconscious greater access to distant memories. Also, because the prefrontal is arguably responsible for repression, its deactivation amid dream sleep gives the unconscious mind greater access to the feelings, thoughts, and experiences that prefrontal function represses.
    I also agree with you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    It seems most likely to me, that what you perceive as unconscious memory is merely those memories made inaccessible by our conscious focus on more recent memories and experiences of higher priority. Our active prefrontal sets this conscious focus and releases it amid dream sleep, thus giving the unconscious greater access to distant memories.
    I agree with you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Awareness, in my view, begins with the perception of influence; one cannot be aware without some sensory distinction external to the awareness source. The perception influence begins with self-perception, thus consciousness begins with self-perception. The sensory information flowing from our physical being into the cognitive centers of our brain initiates and shapes our awareness of self. In this way, the data our brain receives first from our physical being, then from our physical environment, forms the basis of consciousness construction by the brain.
    Ah, ok. Yes, I agree with this also.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Our brain collects an enormous amount of sensory information that never reaches the conscious cognitive centers of our brain. Most of that information is low priority and of little value to our daily pursuits and focus. In the absence of the conscious barriers to our cognitive processes, our unconscious has access to the minutest of perceptions and details. Our instinctual systems evolved over the millennia from a quantum state. Theoretically, our unconscious should have access even to the information our instinctual systems collect at a quantum level. Our conscious mind is interested in the “Big Picture”, while our unconscious may have unprecedented access to the details of that picture.
    This is true, and I agree with you here also. However, when you refer to its theoretical access to a quantum state, are you referring to the idea that it may be possible for data that we've never experienced throughout our lifetime, to be accessed? (e.g. data of our ancestors)

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    The only type of awareness that we are the slightest bit capable of clearly understanding is the awareness humanity produces. We know this is valid because of the reciprocity of understanding wherein we can cogently convey our experiences to each other. Therefore, the only measure of awareness we can apply to other species with any confidence is the example humanity sets. We know that humanity’s awareness requires a centralized neural structure wherein sensory data is perceived and processed in such a way as to produce behavioral responses independent of instinctual behaviors. With this example in mind, we have a basis for investigating whether other life forms qualify as sentient species. Clearly, in my view, we have enough information to “pinpoint that of which is responsible for producing awareness”.
    I agree with you that we can only consider for that of which is aware by means of comparing the form of life to ourselves, or that alike our own (e.g. we fundamentally believe that animals are aware, but some may not consider insects or others alike to be aware).

    The continued discussion is welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    ...when you refer to its theoretical access to a quantum state, are you referring to the idea that it may be possible for data that we've never experienced throughout our lifetime, to be accessed? (e.g. data of our ancestors)
    I do not believe it is possible to know what we have not perceived or experienced. With that said, I think it may be theoretically possible to access the instinctive information and perceptions our primal systems hold and gather. Our instinctive systems monitor every aspect of our autonomic functions; they know which nutrients the body needs in detail and these systems influence our conscious will to feed. For example, our instinctive systems may detect a need for more potassium. In our conscious mind, that specific need for potassium translates as a general desire to have food with a particular taste. In this way, a micro need detection by our instinctive systems influences the macro will of our conscious cognition.

    In the above example, we do not consciously know our specific autonomic need other than a desire for particular foods. Our conscious preoccupation with the "Big Picture” occludes our awareness of the minutia. Minus this conscious preoccupation, our unconscious could theoretically perceive all the minutia our instinctive systems hold and collect. Imagine, if you will, having access to our primal heritage at its instinctive level—through every individual sensory receptor and cell of our body, our cognition could have access to a galaxy of information, on a molecular level of perception, spanning several generations. This, of course, is merely speculation—or is it? Could there be a better explanation for supposed metaphysical phenomena such as precognition and telepathy? I welcome your thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    ...when you refer to its theoretical access to a quantum state, are you referring to the idea that it may be possible for data that we've never experienced throughout our lifetime, to be accessed? (e.g. data of our ancestors)
    I do not believe it is possible to know what we have not perceived or experienced. With that said, I think it may be theoretically possible to access the instinctive information and perceptions our primal systems hold and gather. Our instinctive systems monitor every aspect of our autonomic functions; they know which nutrients the body needs in detail and these systems influence our conscious will to feed. For example, our instinctive systems may detect a need for more potassium. In our conscious mind, that specific need for potassium translates as a general desire to have food with a particular taste. In this way, a micro need detection by our instinctive systems influences the macro will of our conscious cognition.

    In the above example, we do not consciously know our specific autonomic need other than a desire for particular foods. Our conscious preoccupation with the "Big Picture” occludes our awareness of the minutia. Minus this conscious preoccupation, our unconscious could theoretically perceive all the minutia our instinctive systems hold and collect. Imagine, if you will, having access to our primal heritage at its instinctive level—through every individual sensory receptor and cell of our body, our cognition could have access to a galaxy of information, on a molecular level of perception, spanning several generations. This, of course, is merely speculation—or is it? Could there be a better explanation for supposed metaphysical phenomena such as precognition and telepathy? I welcome your thoughts.
    I agree with you here. However, it would be quite odd in perspective; consciousness percieving consciousness. Essentially, as a result of awareness constructed from our neurobiology, it would be the cells viewing themselves in all possible detail. I'm uncertain of metaphysical phenomenas, although if for any, I would see telepathy as a likely possibility as opposed to clarivoyance (I can't see how this is possible). Also, I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts of metaphysical phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    galaxy of information, on a molecular level of perception, spanning several generations
    Are you implying that theoretically, it may be possible for experience of our ancestors (Parents parents, etc) on a micro level? (The only possibility I could see in this is in our genes; perhaps ancestial data is stored in our genes, although this may be way off; my knowledge of biology and genes is very poor, although personally, I believe some genes that follow physical development are supplemented for environmental adaptation (e.g. we may find certain things to learn easier to others; our parents may have consisted with great ability in the things we find easy to learn, whereas new things that were not previously experienced are harder to learn. Perhaps the genes support the storage and use of new information).

    The continued discussion is welcome. This is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I agree with you here. However, it would be quite odd in perspective; consciousness percieving consciousness. Essentially, as a result of awareness constructed from our neurobiology, it would be the cells viewing themselves in all possible detail.
    To clarify, the awareness between cells on an instinctual level would only be as a reflex rather than a suggestion of cognition. Our instinctive systems perceive and respond to our bodily needs as a reflex to changes in the equilibrium of the body. The detection of such changes can occur at the cellular level. Theoretically, awareness could intervene our instinctive detection systems via the unconscious, minus the barriers that preclude conscious awareness; i.e., during the liberated state of dream sleep, the unconscious could theoretically gain access to the information our instinctive systems hold and collect. This is not the cells becoming aware; this is the unconscious becoming aware of the cells through the information our instinctive systems gather—theoretically.


    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I'm uncertain of metaphysical phenomenas, although if for any, I would see telepathy as a likely possibility as opposed to clarivoyance (I can't see how this is possible). Also, I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts of metaphysical phenomena.
    For any ability of consciousness to manifest, my position is that such manifestations must have a basis in how the brain perceives and process information. Some manifest metaphysical phenomena does not appear to be outside the boundaries of brain function—in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Are you implying that theoretically, it may be possible for experience of our ancestors (Parents parents, etc) on a micro level?
    No, but it may be possible to extrapolate their experience from the information theoretically available to our unconscious via our instinctive systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    (The only possibility I could see in this is in our genes; perhaps ancestial data is stored in our genes, although this may be way off; my knowledge of biology and genes is very poor, although personally, I believe some genes that follow physical development are supplemented for environmental adaptation (e.g. we may find certain things to learn easier to others; our parents may have consisted with great ability in the things we find easy to learn, whereas new things that were not previously experienced are harder to learn. Perhaps the genes support the storage and use of new information).
    This may be off topic, but I think mainstream gives far too much credit to our genes for much of our behaviors. Mainstream primarily perceives the gestation period from conception to birth as predominantly a physical development and preparatory phase. In my opinion, the fetus is being prepared for much more than the physical challenges of early infancy during those nine months of gestation.

    Through an informal survey, I noticed how children of higher intelligence where either born to mother who were teachers or who were students during their pregnancy. As I followed, again informally, the development of some of these children, I noticed how they increasingly assumed the disposition and temperament their mothers displayed during their pregnancy. What I’m suggesting by this is that the nine month gestation period of human pregnancy may also prepare the fetus for the mental and emotional challenges it might encounter later on in its life. I am suggesting that the fetus is like a mental and emotional blank slate at conception that eventually develops a model, in vitro, for its future behavior based on the mother’s behavior during its nine months gestation period. After birth, that model of behavior, developed in the womb, is gradually aroused and influenced by the life experiences of the child. Therefore, twin who are reared separately from birth may have similar personalities because they shared the same model of human behavior during their gestation—just a side theory.

    Regarding our genetic heritage, we know that less evolved animals inherit a myriad of instinctual behaviors suggestive of some genetic knowledge. If our human instinctual systems quantify such knowledge, then I believe it is theoretically possible to have unconscious access to the primal insights our ancient animal ancestors bequeath through those instinctive systems. I welcome your further thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    To clarify, the awareness between cells on an instinctual level would only be as a reflex rather than a suggestion of cognition. Our instinctive systems perceive and respond to our bodily needs as a reflex to changes in the equilibrium of the body. The detection of such changes can occur at the cellular level. Theoretically, awareness could intervene our instinctive detection systems via the unconscious, minus the barriers that preclude conscious awareness; i.e., during the liberated state of dream sleep, the unconscious could theoretically gain access to the information our instinctive systems hold and collect. This is not the cells becoming aware; this is the unconscious becoming aware of the cells through the information our instinctive systems gather—theoretically.
    Yes, this is what I was implying; it would be quite paradoxical if we could access the information of our instinctual systems whilst present unconscious. It would essentially be cells viewing cells viewing cells viewing cells.. etc. However, although that may appear odd, many other things are odd with awareness (On a macro level of perception (e.g. now)); I could think to myself and say "Hi" and thus, it would essentially be self saying "Hi" to self to self to self to self, and so forth - and thus, a paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    For any ability of consciousness to manifest, my position is that such manifestations must have a basis in how the brain perceives and process information. Some manifest metaphysical phenomena does not appear to be outside the boundaries of brain function—in my opinion.
    Although I do agree with you, personally I believe we cannot exist once, and that existence is infinite; a total of an infinite amount of possibilities and thus, all of which occur simutanously, etc - as I had stated in previous posts. There are many reasons as to why, and I find it incredibly hard to believe that this is our only experience of perception - awareness - in life, and that once we die, it's over. Based on my personal perspective, I believe there must be some form of basis in either physics or neurobiology; the two being correlated may create consciousness (e.g. one supplements the other; as a result of neurology evolving to pertaining some form of perception - awareness - it also intervenes with the subject of physics). However, this is not to justify telepathy, although I would find this the most likely of any form of esp; any form of psychokenesis is a little far off - and is rather to justify the existence of an afterlife, or rather, eternal existence. Therefore, I also believe there must be a basis in neurology (Biological sciences intervening with physical science (e.g. for neurology to somehow interact with a universal force - this could also take part in other subjects, such as computer science with the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) - although my apologies if this seems odd, as it may be off by a long shot) - in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    No, but it may be possible to extrapolate their experience from the information theoretically available to our unconscious via our instinctive systems.
    Ah, ok. If our instintual systems pertain the functions of all systems throughout our body, then how could our unconscious extract their experiences via these systems? Theoretically, where could their experiences be stored? In genes?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    This may be off topic, but I think mainstream gives far too much credit to our genes for much of our behaviors. Mainstream primarily perceives the gestation period from conception to birth as predominantly a physical development and preparatory phase. In my opinion, the fetus is being prepared for much more than the physical challenges of early infancy during those nine months of gestation.
    This would seem plausible as if unprepared, one may lack survival tactics or such; survival, although would be to fight/flee, is rather to adapt (e.g. discipline would suggest something that is wrong, and thus the individual would adapt to the circumstances in which they wouldn't commit to that what was deemed wrong). Perhaps it is this stage that supports the adaptation to the environment following birth; as a result, this may also be the reason why we don't do something wrong after something of which we committed was deemed wrong. Again though, I'm probably off by a long shot; I don't have much knowledge of birth and pregnancy, or the development of a human being or other animal.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Through an informal survey, I noticed how children of higher intelligence where either born to mother who were teachers or who were students during their pregnancy. As I followed, again informally, the development of some of these children, I noticed how they increasingly assumed the disposition and temperament their mothers displayed during their pregnancy. What I’m suggesting by this is that the nine month gestation period of human pregnancy may also prepare the fetus for the mental and emotional challenges it might encounter later on in its life. I am suggesting that the fetus is like a mental and emotional blank slate at conception that eventually develops a model, in vitro, for its future behavior based on the mother’s behavior during its nine months gestation period. After birth, that model of behavior, developed in the womb, is gradually aroused and influenced by the life experiences of the child. Therefore, twin who are reared separately from birth may have similar personalities because they shared the same model of human behavior during their gestation—just a side theory.

    Regarding our genetic heritage, we know that less evolved animals inherit a myriad of instinctual behaviors suggestive of some genetic knowledge. If our human instinctual systems quantify such knowledge, then I believe it is theoretically possible to have unconscious access to the primal insights our ancient animal ancestors bequeath through those instinctive systems. I welcome your further thoughts.
    This would also seem plausible, and is also very interesting.

    I welcome the continued discussion and thoughts. This is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Yes, this is what I was implying; it would be quite paradoxical if we could access the information of our instinctual systems whilst present unconscious. It would essentially be cells viewing cells viewing cells viewing cells.. etc. However, although that may appear odd, many other things are odd with awareness (On a macro level of perception (e.g. now)); I could think to myself and say "Hi" and thus, it would essentially be self saying "Hi" to self to self to self to self, and so forth - and thus, a paradox.
    In my view, accessing the instinctual systems is no more a paradox than becoming aware of some sensation in our hand or foot. Consciousness of our instinctual systems would merely quantify in detail something we generally know or know instinctively. For example, we may know we're hungry; however, awareness of our instinctual systems would tell us what specific imbalance has caused that hunger. This isn’t as much as a conversation with our instinctual systems than it is an analysis of the data those systems hold and collect.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Although I do agree with you, personally I believe we cannot exist once, and that existence is infinite; a total of an infinite amount of possibilities and thus, all of which occur simutanously, etc - as I had stated in previous posts. There are many reasons as to why, and I find it incredibly hard to believe that this is our only experience of perception - awareness - in life, and that once we die, it's over.
    Then this is a spiritual or religious belief, since it is beyond our current ability to test this idea of infinite existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Based on my personal perspective, I believe there must be some form of basis in either physics or neurobiology; the two being correlated may create consciousness (e.g. one supplements the other; as a result of neurology evolving to pertaining some form of perception - awareness - it also intervenes with the subject of physics). However, this is not to justify telepathy, although I would find this the most likely of any form of esp; any form of psychokenesis is a little far off - and is rather to justify the existence of an afterlife, or rather, eternal existence. Therefore, I also believe there must be a basis in neurology (Biological sciences intervening with physical science (e.g. for neurology to somehow interact with a universal force - this could also take part in other subjects, such as computer science with the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) - although my apologies if this seems odd, as it may be off by a long shot) - in my opinion.
    Theoretically, we are all connected to each other and the universe through the ether of quantum reality. If one is able to sense that connection, one might be able to manipulate elements of that reality. From my study, the various and odd dream experiences involving visits from the departed near the moment of their death posit the only evidence of life persisting beyond death. These dreams often occur as bedroom visitations wherein the dreamer receives a reassurance from the departed that “everything will be okay.” What makes these dream experiences compelling is very often the dreamer is not aware of the decedent’s illness and subsequent death until later told. Supposed after-death-contact, precognitive and telepathic dream experiences appear to support the idea of a profoundly perceptive unconscious mind unbound by the mental barriers conscious physical/material reality imposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    If our instintual systems pertain the functions of all systems throughout our body, then how could our unconscious extract their experiences via these systems? Theoretically, where could their experiences be stored? In genes?
    How is it that we consciously know our hands are cold and our feet are wet when they are immersed in snow and water? Our instinctual systems provide that information to the brain’s cognitive centers via the physical sensory array of body. Our instinctual systems do not convey in words “our hands are cold and our feet are wet”; they convey the sensory information that enables our cognitive analysis of the conditions affecting our hands and feet. In my view, enabling our unconscious analysis of our instinctual information would involve a similar process relative to the experience of mental reality.

    I welcome your further interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    In my view, accessing the instinctual systems is no more a paradox than becoming aware of some sensation in our hand or foot. Consciousness of our instinctual systems would merely quantify in detail something we generally know or know instinctively. For example, we may know were hungry; however, awareness of our instinctual systems would tell us what specific imbalance has caused that hunger. This isn’t as much as a conversation with our instinctual systems than it is an analysis of the data those systems hold and collect.
    Although I do agree with you, this is not the message I had conveyed (I'm discussing of awareness on a macro level, and not in minutia). Thinking of self (e.g. looking in the mirror at you - yourself - is similar to placing two mirrors together, each of which reflect the opposite. To clarify my perspective, thinking of you, just you and not your personality, is literally you thinking of you thinking of you - and so forth - a paradox. This is slightly hard to grasp however, if it's a paradox, it's infinite; it goes on forever. However, if it's an infinite, and considering universal requirements, then an infinite amount of time would be required in order for an infinite capacity to have elapsed; the question here is, if you think of yourself, is this really a paradox? Do you think of you thinking of you - an infinite amount of times in that very instant? The problem with the mirror paradox, is the lack of correspondance of each opposites and each owns viewing (Although you may be able to allign the two perfectly, in which they would reflect each other infinitely, can you validate this? How can you observe this? If you observe this, you distrupt the allignment, unless there is some other method I'm unaware of). Therefore, if thought is in perfect allignment, does this justify that when you do think of you, you are indeed thinking of you thinking of you thinking of you - an infinite amount of times? Mind you, this is a little off-topic, and my apologies for going off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Then this is a spiritual or religious belief, since it is beyond our current ability to test this idea of infinite existence.
    If paradoxes exist, then this justifies infinite - in my opinion. If anything, the beliefs of an afterlife is indeed spirtual, and can sometimes be compulsory in religeon; when scientific evidence arises however, it is no longer spirtual, or spirtual then implicated into science? I'm sure some considerations into spirtuality in correlation with science may discover some evidence; therefore, spirtuality, its justifications, can become a science (Well, a product of).

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Theoretically, we are all connected to each other and the universe through the ether of quantum reality. If one is able to sense that connection, one might be able to manipulate elements of that reality. From my study, the various and odd dream experiences involving visits from the departed near the moment of their death posit the only evidence of life persisting beyond death. These dreams often occur as bedroom visitations wherein the dreamer receives a reassurance from the departed that “everything will be okay.” What makes these dream experiences compelling is very often the dreamer is not aware of the decedent’s illness and subsequent death until later told. Supposed after-death-contact, precognitive and telepathic dream experiences appear to support the idea of a profoundly perceptive unconscious mind unbound by the mental barriers conscious physical/material reality imposes.
    I agree with you here, and yes, NDE's and others as such are presently, the only form of evidence suggesting a life persisting beyond death. I'm not entirely sure as to why precognition would support an unconscious mind unencumbered by a conscious literal perception; or are you referring to an unconscious mind as equivilent to our conscious perception minus the physical/materialistic barriers? (e.g. conscious dreaming)

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    How is it that we consciously know our hands are cold and our feet are wet when they are immersed in snow and water? Our instinctual systems provide that information to the brain’s cognitive centers via the physical sensory array of body. Our instinctual systems do not convey in words “our hands are cold and our feet are wet”; they convey the sensory information that enables our cognitive analysis of the conditions affecting our hands and feet. In my view, enabling our unconscious analysis of our instinctual information would involve a similar process relative to the experience of mental reality.

    I welcome your further interest.
    I agree with you here. However, I'm not entirely certain as to how you mean by "enabling an unconscious analysis of our instinctual information would involve a similar process relative to the experience of mental reality", could you could elaborate on this little more? Thanks.

    The continued discussion is welcome, I also welcome you further thoughts on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Although I do agree with you, this is not the message I had conveyed (I'm discussing of awareness on a macro level, and not in minutia). Thinking of self (e.g. looking in the mirror at you - yourself - is similar to placing two mirrors together, each of which reflect the opposite. To clarify my perspective, thinking of you, just you and not your personality, is literally you thinking of you thinking of you - and so forth - a paradox. This is slightly hard to grasp however, if it's a paradox, it's infinite; it goes on forever. However, if it's an infinite, and considering universal requirements, then an infinite amount of time would be required in order for an infinite capacity to have elapsed; the question here is, if you think of yourself, is this really a paradox? Do you think of you thinking of you - an infinite amount of times in that very instant? The problem with the mirror paradox, is the lack of correspondance of each opposites and each owns viewing (Although you may be able to allign the two perfectly, in which they would reflect each other infinitely, can you validate this? How can you observe this? If you observe this, you distrupt the allignment, unless there is some other method I'm unaware of). Therefore, if thought is in perfect allignment, does this justify that when you do think of you, you are indeed thinking of you thinking of you thinking of you - an infinite amount of times? Mind you, this is a little off-topic, and my apologies for going off-topic.
    I not sure I understand your meaning; however, if self communication is akin to standing before mirror, then it is an assessment of a reflection rather than a conversation with that reflection.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I'm not entirely sure as to why precognition would support an unconscious mind unencumbered by a conscious literal perception; or are you referring to an unconscious mind as equivilent to our conscious perception minus the physical/materialistic barriers? (e.g. conscious dreaming)
    To clarify, our conscious mind works inside the box of physical/material reality; our unconscious works outside that box. Being on the outside enables a wider perspective of experience. When we are conscious, our awareness is within the box; when we dream, our awareness is free of the box.

    If we are all connected to the universe through the ether of quantum reality, then precognition would be little more than standing on a hill and observing approaching weather conditions on the horizon; i.e., precognition is little more than the observation of converging events approaching from a distance. If the unconscious is our most liberated mode of consciousness, as I have theorized, then it is possible to assess the approach of marco occurences from the quantum observation of our unboxed consciousness.

    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I agree with you here. However, I'm not entirely certain as to how you mean by "enabling an unconscious analysis of our instinctual information would involve a similar process relative to the experience of mental reality", could you could elaborate on this little more? Thanks.
    This is like wanting to have the treasure without digging for it. You can't get information from the unconscious that doesn't serve its will. How does it serve your unconscious to know all the secrets of the universe? What is most important to the unconscious, from my experience, is understanding its self and its mental environment. Your conscious experiences create its mental environment; your effort to consciously comprehend its experiences--an effort to understand dream imagery--enables a dialogue through which you may gain access to the kind of information or insight you seek. This may only occur when you are competent in translating dream imagery and when you understand the boundaries of your unconscious--and yes, your unconscious has boundaries that serve its will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    I not sure I understand your meaning; however, if self communication is akin to standing before mirror, then it is an assessment of a reflection rather than a conversation with that reflection.
    When the opposite mirror reflects its former, it generates a new reflection from within of which in turn, generates a new reflection - this goes on, and on and on - with reflection of a reflection reflecting a reflection - and so forth. When one thinks of themselves, it is essentially them thinking of them; the mirror of them in turn, thinks of themselves akin to the mirror paradox (Consider the mirror without the requirements for light or allignment). Although the mirror paradox is dependent upon the position of the two mirrors and light, a self-paradox is unencumbered by any constraints; when one thinks of themselves, an infinite amount of "them" think of themselves during the very instant - in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    To clarify, our conscious mind works inside the box of physical/material reality; our unconscious works outside that box. Being on the outside enables a wider perspective of experience. When we are conscious, our awareness is within the box; when we dream, our awareness is free of the box.

    If we are all connected to the universe through the ether of quantum reality, then precognition would be little more than standing on a hill and observing approaching weather conditions on the horizon; i.e., precognition is little more than the observation of converging events approaching from a distance. If the unconscious is our most liberated mode of consciousness, as I have theorized, then it is possible to assess the approach of marco occurences from the quantum observation of our unboxed consciousness.
    Ah, I understand now. I agree with you here.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    This is like wanting to have the treasure without digging for it. You can't get information from the unconscious that doesn't serve its will. How does it serve your unconscious to know all the secrets of the universe? What is most important to the unconscious, from my experience, is understanding its self and its mental environment. Your conscious experiences create its mental environment; your effort to consciously comprehend its experiences--an effort to understand dream imagery--enables a dialogue through which you may gain access to the kind of information or insight you seek. This may only occur when you are competent in translating dream imagery and when you understand the boundaries of your unconscious--and yes, your unconscious has boundaries that serve its will.
    Ah, okay, I understand now. I agree with you here also.

    The continued discussion is welcome, this is very interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    When the opposite mirror reflects its former, it generates a new reflection from within of which in turn, generates a new reflection - this goes on, and on and on - with reflection of a reflection reflecting a reflection - and so forth. When one thinks of themselves, it is essentially them thinking of them; the mirror of them in turn, thinks of themselves akin to the mirror paradox (Consider the mirror without the requirements for light or allignment). Although the mirror paradox is dependent upon the position of the two mirrors and light, a self-paradox is unencumbered by any constraints; when one thinks of themselves, an infinite amount of "them" think of themselves during the very instant - in my opinion.
    With human consciousness, it is not quite the mirror reflection. Conscious awareness, unconscious awareness, and instinctual awareness are not mirror reflections of the others; i.e., each awareness comprises a different perspective of our mental dynamics. Therefore, conscious facing unconscious facing instinctual--as if mirror reflections--would not present an infinite reflection of the same quality as a mirror facing another mirror.

    I welcome your thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    When the opposite mirror reflects its former, it generates a new reflection from within of which in turn, generates a new reflection - this goes on, and on and on - with reflection of a reflection reflecting a reflection - and so forth. When one thinks of themselves, it is essentially them thinking of them; the mirror of them in turn, thinks of themselves akin to the mirror paradox (Consider the mirror without the requirements for light or allignment). Although the mirror paradox is dependent upon the position of the two mirrors and light, a self-paradox is unencumbered by any constraints; when one thinks of themselves, an infinite amount of "them" think of themselves during the very instant - in my opinion.
    With human consciousness, it is not quite the mirror reflection. Conscious awareness, unconscious awareness, and instinctual awareness are not mirror reflections of the others; i.e., each awareness comprises a different perspective of our mental dynamics. Therefore, conscious facing unconscious facing instinctual--as if mirror reflections--would not present an infinite reflection of the same quality as a mirror facing another mirror.

    I welcome your thoughts.
    I understand that each form of awareness wouldn't act parallel to each other, however, I was referring to consciousness - self-existence - on a macro level. In other words, let's just consider that one exists self-aware with some form of cognition and is seperate to their physical form. Now, if they think of just them, not their experience or such, just themselves - their self - then this essentially, is them thinking of them, thinking of them, thinking of them - all the way to infinite (Unlike the mirror paradox, only one side is reflected to infinite; if image this in your mind, you may notice how it appears like a tunnel of oneself thinking of oneself, to the next, the next and so forth - to infinite). Therefore, thinking of oneself is paradoxical - in my opinion.

    Your throughts are welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    introspection teaches you about perspective and to look deeper, just as your tunnel analogy would seem. If either mirror is a bit off angle, the tunnel is curved and no longer infinite. Also, there is usually a lot of dust, objects and/or ego in the way of seeing the infinite tunnel.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    introspection teaches you about perspective and to look deeper, just as your tunnel analogy would seem. If either mirror is a bit off angle, the tunnel is curved and no longer infinite. Also, there is usually a lot of dust, objects and/or ego in the way of seeing the infinite tunnel.
    Yes, the infinite reflection wouldn't occur if either mirror was lacking in proper alignment. However, when thinking of oneself, there is no alignment required, and any form of ego or such is not in the way; I'm sure anyone can simply think of just them, thus creating this infinite tunnel (Their self thinking of their self thinking of their self thinking of their self - and so forth to infinite).

    Your thoughts are welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I was referring to consciousness - self-existence - on a macro level. In other words, let's just consider that one exists self-aware with some form of cognition and is seperate to their physical form. Now, if they think of just them, not their experience or such, just themselves - their self - then this essentially, is them thinking of them, thinking of them, thinking of them - all the way to infinite (Unlike the mirror paradox, only one side is reflected to infinite; if image this in your mind, you may notice how it appears like a tunnel of oneself thinking of oneself, to the next, the next and so forth - to infinite). Therefore, thinking of oneself is paradoxical - in my opinion.
    I understand; if our dream awareness is outside the box of physical reality, then to think of self while in this state would indeed suggest a paradoxical awareness of awareness; i.e., consciousness of being self-aware. When these experiences occur in a dream (e.g., looking at a mirror reflection of self) they frequently result in lucidity, wherein the dreamer becomes aware of being within a dream. Dream lucidity and becoming self-aware suggest an unparalleled level of mental clarity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    I was referring to consciousness - self-existence - on a macro level. In other words, let's just consider that one exists self-aware with some form of cognition and is seperate to their physical form. Now, if they think of just them, not their experience or such, just themselves - their self - then this essentially, is them thinking of them, thinking of them, thinking of them - all the way to infinite (Unlike the mirror paradox, only one side is reflected to infinite; if image this in your mind, you may notice how it appears like a tunnel of oneself thinking of oneself, to the next, the next and so forth - to infinite). Therefore, thinking of oneself is paradoxical - in my opinion.
    I understand; if our dream awareness is outside the box of physical reality, then to think of self while in this state would indeed suggest a paradoxical awareness of awareness; i.e., consciousness of being self-aware. When these experiences occur in a dream (e.g., looking at a mirror reflection of self) they frequently result in lucidity, wherein the dreamer becomes aware of being within a dream. Dream lucidity and becoming self-aware suggest an unparalleled level of mental clarity.
    Ah, yes. Whilst within a dream however, we only become aware of the dream environment, and not ourselves. Despite this however, we can still think "me" or to "self", thus resulting in a paradox; thinking to you, and not your physical presence, just you, even if it is the product of physical matter, would result in you thinking of you thinking of you, and so forth to infinite. I made the mistake earlier by stating it was akin to the mirror paradox with both sides, when it wasn't, and my apologies for this misinformation I provided. And although we are encumbered by the literal perception of reality during the present, we are not limited to our forefront; we can still think outside the box now (e.g. I can think to myself - just me - resulting in me, thinking of me, thinking of me, and so forth).

    Also, you stated that if the dreamer observes oneself in a mirror, does this result in lucidity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Ah, yes. Whilst within a dream however, we only become aware of the dream environment, and not ourselves...Also, you stated that if the dreamer observes oneself in a mirror, does this result in lucidity?
    Dream lucidity, as understood by mainstream authorities, has been misunderstood and, therefore, misinterpreted. More than just becoming aware of being within a dream, lucid dreaming is the awareness of the true nature of one's experience; i.e., it is the deep awareness of one's self and an understanding of the context in which one's self is being influenced. For example, becoming lucid amid a bad dream suggests a realization that the negative affects of an experiences is all in one's mind and not a result of what may be truely happening in one's life. Essentailly, lucid dreaming is how your unconscious perceives and conceives an epiphany. I welcome your thoughts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Sophomore blue_space87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by blue_space87
    Ah, yes. Whilst within a dream however, we only become aware of the dream environment, and not ourselves...Also, you stated that if the dreamer observes oneself in a mirror, does this result in lucidity?
    Dream lucidity, as understoody by mainstream authorities, has been misunderstood and, therefore, misinterpreted. More than just becoming aware of being within a dream, lucid dreaming is the awareness of the true nature of one's experience; i.e., it is the deep awareness of one's self and an understanding of the context in which one's self is being influenced. For example, becoming lucid amid a bad dream suggests a realization that the negative affects of an experiences is all in one's mind and not a result of what may be truely happening in one's life. Essentailly, lucid dreaming is how your unconscious perceives and conceives an epipthany. I welcome your thoughts.
    You're correct, my apologies for my misunderstanding; I initially thought of lucid dreaming as merely becoming aware of the dream environment. However, now, I understand it's more, and even paradoxical; it's incredible, becoming aware of oneself own cognitive environment occluding the encumbered materialistic perception; external sensory perception. Essentially, lucid dreaming in its paradoxical perspective, is awareness becoming aware of aware of aware, and so forth - if I haven't misunderstood.

    Your thoughts are welcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    annapolis
    Posts
    87
    Ive been blessed enough to experience one of these so called lucid dreams. It was during a bad dream, and I was telling myself dont look, because bad images are going to appear out of nowhere and they will be tough to watch. So I closed my eyes, and woke up.
    did I kayak did I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886
    It was during a bad dream, and I was telling myself dont look, because bad images are going to appear out of nowhere and they will be tough to watch. So I closed my eyes, and woke up.
    With dream recall, it is easy but self-deceiving to perceive our experiences in dream content as influences upon some aspect of our waking self. Very often, that person we are in dream content is the person we are inwardly; a person whose wise voice we seldom hear or understand. When we do not give voice to that inner person, it has no choice but to close its eyes and endure whatever trials our conscious decisions have wrought.

    It may be that we have not intentionally ignored the voice of our unconscious; it may be that we have not quite understood its voice. Also, as I have learned, ignoring our conscious plight is not the intent of our unconscious self. The problem is the language barrier to our dialogue. Unfortunately, there isn't a single book or method, other than my own, that I would recommend to enhance one's understanding of that language. Every method I've reviewed is clouded by the seemingly intractable literal perspective of conscious thought. Even my books to-date do not encompass everything I've come to understand in recent months. Just the other day, I finally understood a particularly vivid dream I had several years ago.

    I dreamed about a flooding room that no one seemed to notice. When I peered into the room, I saw that the water was spilling from a grandfather clock, which I then plugged with my finger until the flooding stopped. As I now consider in retrospect, my interest in the unconscious mind is an attempt to stop the loss of some vital insight we unconsciously perceive and experience, but ignore throughout our life. I welcome your continued interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    annapolis
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by DrmDoc
    Quote Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886
    It was during a bad dream, and I was telling myself dont look, because bad images are going to appear out of nowhere and they will be tough to watch. So I closed my eyes, and woke up.
    With dream recall, it is easy but self-deceiving to perceive our experiences in dream content as influences upon some aspect of our waking self. Very often, that person we are in dream content is the person we are inwardly; a person whose wise voice we seldom hear or understand. When we do not give voice to that inner person, it has no choice but to close its eyes and endure whatever trials our conscious decisions have wrought.

    It may be that we have not intentionally ignored the voice of our unconscious; it may be that we have not quite understood its voice. Also, as I have learned, ignoring our conscious plight is not the intent of our unconscious self. The problem is the language barrier to our dialogue. Unfortunately, there isn't a single book or method, other than my own, that I would recommend to enhance one's understanding of that language. Every method I've reviewed is clouded by the seemingly intractable literal perspective of conscious thought. Even my books to-date do not encompass everything I've come to understand in recent months. Just the other day, I finally understood a particularly vivid dream I had several years ago.

    I dreamed about a flooding room that no one seemed to notice. When I peered into the room, I saw that the water was spilling from a grandfather clock, which I then plugged with my finger until the flooding stopped. As I now consider in retrospect, my interest in the unconscious mind is an attempt to stop the loss of some vital insight we unconsciously perceive and experience, but ignore throughout our life. I welcome your continued interest.
    So the loss of the vital insight that you are in fact preventing by mastering the unconscious, is the same as the space in the room you saved from the pouring water ? And if so what do you think the water represents in your waking state?
    did I kayak did I.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886
    So the loss of the vital insight that you are in fact preventing by mastering the unconscious, is the same as the space in the room you saved from the pouring water ? And if so what do you think the water represents in your waking state?
    Another excellent question! The subtle distinctions of dream content are extraordinary. The expression suggested by the room when my position is on the outside changes once I enter the room. Outside, my position suggests a perspective of some unconscious experience; inside, the room suggests some enveloping frame of thought (i.e., a structured mental experience).

    Whatever a substance is to the body, in dreams that substance suggests a similar quality to the mind and awareness. This is a general rule that applies to all dream content. To the body, plain water (not sea water) is cleansing, refreshing, and vital to its health; therefore, in dreams, water is how the unconscious perceive something that is cleansing, refreshing, and vital to the health of the mind. The grandfather clock suggests a conjugated perspective; grandfather, the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors and clock, the means by which we measure our life experience. Together, the grandfather clock describes the accumulated wisdom of life experience that is passed from generation to generation. The hole in the clock, through which the water spills, suggests a perspective of an omission in the wisdom bequeath through the generations. That omission has allowed the spilling or loss of an element that is vital to mental health. The water is a perspective of that which is inwardly and outwardly meaningful to a healthy mind and awareness.

    Although I didn’t know then, every element of that dream, from the hole in the clock to standing in water, described something I unconsciously perceived and understood. I encouraged your continued interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9
    jeeeez you lot go on.............

    can't you condense it a bit for us thicko's? it's just took me two hours to read that lot!



    dan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior DrmDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, USA
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by dannny
    can't you condense it a bit for us thicko's? it's just took me two hours to read that lot!
    It's not the destination that defines a journey, it's what you learn along the way. Corny? Yes, but take the two hours anyway--you may find it worth the journey
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •