Thread: The unconscious mind

I am beginning to think the unconscious mind is the instinctual base of the mind. As such it seems as though it is dependent on the recognition of shapes and how they are formed. I feel that the unconscious mind "sees" things in a simpler way. It identifies various shapes and either sees them as positive or negative, thus the individual in question will either be attracted or repelled based on the distinction of those shapes or impressions. It could be said that the mind may develop with certain basic "shapes" already in its structure, or they could be developed in infancy.

Originally Posted by Schizo

I am beginning to think the unconscious mind is the instinctual base of the mind. As such it seems as though it is dependent on the recognition of shapes and how they are formed. I feel that the unconscious mind "sees" things in a simpler way. It identifies various shapes and either sees them as positive or negative, thus the individual in question will either be attracted or repelled based on the distinction of those shapes or impressions. It could be said that the mind may develop with certain basic "shapes" already in its structure, or they could be developed in infancy.

The 'subliminal psychology of our English language is an influence on our subconscious beliefs. But there is more to this.
See my new post on this subject.

Cosmo

The unconscious or subconscious mind is the active process of thought below the awareness of self; the consciousness.

Altering the subconscious will result in the alteration of the consciousness, only due to the memory however. If you alter ones memory, you alter the self. The subconscious either produces or passes through a reality for the self, and thus; it forms a consciousness, the awareness of a given reality.

Have you ever felt really enlightened throughout your life?
Well, a large or the entire proportion of your cerebral cortex was most likely active upon your subconscious, in which case, you had access (Awareness; were conscious of the data within) to any form of data within the areas active within the cortex.

Talking about various shapes and recognizing them, the subconcsious is crucial to that. The so-called sensoric memory system very vaguely analyzes every single form we see, and should the form or shape appear important, the information goes forward to the next memory system, the working memory.
The information processed in the sensoric memory never reaches our conscious mind. However it alters our behaviour.

Originally Posted by Schizo

I am beginning to think the unconscious mind is the instinctual base of the mind. As such it seems as though it is dependent on the recognition of shapes and how they are formed. I feel that the unconscious mind "sees" things in a simpler way. It identifies various shapes and either sees them as positive or negative, thus the individual in question will either be attracted or repelled based on the distinction of those shapes or impressions. It could be said that the mind may develop with certain basic "shapes" already in its structure, or they could be developed in infancy.

Yeah, somewhat, but maybe more. I am begining to think that the unconscious (subconscious) mind is the "I" and the "I" who is writting this post is a only sensor.

(who drives the car when you are texting and chewing gum?)

Originally Posted by Milum

I am begining to think that the unconscious (subconscious) mind...

From a perspective of my study of the dreaming brain, there is no subconscious mind. Subconscious describes an influence upon the mind. Unconscious and conscious describe the states of brain function that produce the mind. Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. Further still, a mind is quantifiably defined by its capacity to integrate sensory information, from multiple sources of sensory, through a process that produces behaviors independent of those considered instinctual. Succinctly, a mind enables proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

Originally Posted by Milum

...is the "I" and the "I" who is writting this post is a only sensor.

There is evidence, which suggests your thought isn't far from truth. The conscious state of brain function is activated by the part of the brainstem that delivers physical sensory data (tactile and aural) into brain structure. During the dreaming state (unconscious) of brain function, physical sensory does not reach the brain as it does when it is conscious. The state of muscle inelasticity (atonia), which the body enters while dreaming, is mediated by the brainstem section that delivers physical sensory data. Atonia suggests a partial cessation of our tactile sensory systems and our decreased sensitivity to sound while dreaming suggests a cessation of our aural systems. Concisely, this type of evidence suggests that the active state of unconscious brain function is not directly influenced by sensory input.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Milum

I am begining to think that the unconscious (subconscious) mind...

From a perspective of my study of the dreaming brain, there is no subconscious mind. Subconscious describes an influence upon the mind. Unconscious and conscious describe the states of brain function that produce the mind. Mind is the environment of cognitive activity within the brain that arises from brain function. Further still, a mind is quantifiably defined by its capacity to integrate sensory information, from multiple sources of sensory, through a process that produces behaviors independent of those considered instinctual. Succinctly, a mind enables proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

Personally, I believe the subconscious is subjective to awareness; that is to say that, regardless as to whether one should consider this fundamental component of the human - and amongst the many; animals as such - the the component is parts of the brain of which are active subject to the individuals awareness. Consider that.. aspects of the brain that are current producing individual awareness and thus, the individuals consciousness is active upon - those parts of the brain could effectively be understood upon as the conscious mind. Contrary to this, aspects that are not producing awareness could effectively be perceived as the subconscious mind - and there is evidence of the subconscious mind. Simple: you are breathing (I brought the subjective process to become objective - or to become aware of, and thus is controlled manually) - it's an automated process; your subconscious is not aware; hence "sub-conscious (Sub; below-awareness) - or subjective rather" - and thus, can be concluded upon as an automated function, or more conveniently: an automated system; it pertains many, or all automated neuro functions and responses, both of which can be understood as essential, additional and optional.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...and there is evidence of the subconscious mind. Simple: you are breathing (I brought the subjective process to become objective - or to become aware of, and thus is controlled manually) - it's an automated process; your subconscious is not aware; hence "sub-conscious (Sub; below-awareness) - or subjective rather" - and thus, can be concluded upon as an automated function...

With respect to autonomous systems, which do act below the surface of conscious awareness, they are not mental functions or functions of the mind as the phrase subconscious mind appears to suggest whenever referenced. At best, autonomous functions exert influence upon the mind but are not evidence of a mind.

When one traces brain structure and function from what appears to have been its evolutionary beginning, one should find that the brain didn't begin producing a mind until after it had evolved autonomous subsystems. These subsystems regulate biological systems without the contribution or insertion of a cognitive or thought process that quantifies or defines the nature of a mind. A mind, in my view, enables proactive behaviors based on a cognitive assessment process. From my perspective, autonomous subsystems are reactive or instinctual in nature; i.e., they are devoid of the thought and decision-making processes that typify and direct proactive behavior.

The human brain, by my study, appears to engage two neurologically distinct functional states suggestive of cognitive processing: conscious and unconscious. The conscious state of brain function is, of course, suggested by its awake state. When the brain enters REM sleep (dream state), it appears to engage a functional state that is "unconscious" of physical reality. In reality, dreaming is an alternate state of consciousness in the sleeping brain that produces nearly all the EEG and fMRI functional activity suggestive of conscious brain function. Although autonomous or reactive systems are suggestive of awareness, such awareness isn't necessarily evidence of the consciousness a mind constructs--in my opinion. I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by Schizo

I am beginning to think the unconscious mind is the instinctual base of the mind. As such it seems as though it is dependent on the recognition of shapes and how they are formed. I feel that the unconscious mind "sees" things in a simpler way. It identifies various shapes and either sees them as positive or negative, thus the individual in question will either be attracted or repelled based on the distinction of those shapes or impressions. It could be said that the mind may develop with certain basic "shapes" already in its structure, or they could be developed in infancy.

That coincides with the findings of Jung, Freud and modern Neuropsychology. Jung believed in various "forms" representing themes of the "collective unconscious", basically a streamlined array of images that hold meaning to humanity as a whole and will always hold meaning. Freud and his dream analysis dealt with similar themes but with broad, sweeping implications that were not necessarily true or even provable. Modern psychologists/psychiatrists/neurologists (basically everyone in the medical community) recognize that the limbic system mediates these unconscious themes and believe that yes, the unconscious and instinctual are basic components of our ancient "lizard brain" derived from reptiles.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...and there is evidence of the subconscious mind. Simple: you are breathing (I brought the subjective process to become objective - or to become aware of, and thus is controlled manually) - it's an automated process; your subconscious is not aware; hence "sub-conscious (Sub; below-awareness) - or subjective rather" - and thus, can be concluded upon as an automated function...

With respect to autonomous systems, which do act below the surface of conscious awareness, they are not mental functions or functions of the mind as the phrase subconscious mind appears to suggest whenever referenced. At best, autonomous functions exert influence upon the mind but are not evidence of a mind.

When one traces brain structure and function from what appears to have been its evolutionary beginning, one should find that the brain didn't begin producing a mind until after it had evolved autonomous subsystems. These subsystems regulate biological systems without the contribution or insertion of a cognitive or thought process that quantifies or defines the nature of a mind. A mind, in my view, enables proactive behaviors based on a cognitive assessment process. From my perspective, autonomous subsystems are reactive or instinctual in nature; i.e., they are devoid of the thought and decision-making processes that typify and direct proactive behavior.

The human brain, by my study, appears to engage two neurologically distinct functional states suggestive of cognitive processing: conscious and unconscious. The conscious state of brain function is, of course, suggested by its awake state. When the brain enters REM sleep (dream state), it appears to engage a functional state that is "unconscious" of physical reality. In reality, dreaming is an alternate state of consciousness in the sleeping brain that produces nearly all the EEG and fMRI functional activity suggestive of conscious brain function. Although autonomous or reactive systems are suggestive of awareness, such awareness isn't necessarily evidence of the consciousness a mind constructs--in my opinion. I welcome your thoughts.

Although subconscious functions influence awareness, contrary to this unconscious functions can be influenced by conscious decisions - as I had initially mentioned, sub-conscious refers to something of which is subjective (below) conscious (awareness); it cannot decide or think. Despite this however, all automated functions from within the brain are essentially influenced by the mind, and thus vice versa; automated functions in turn effect the mind, influencing individual decisions.

Fundamentally, the conscious mind is dependent upon active automated functions from within the brain; or from what I view upon as the subconscious - it essentially provides the resources from which the conscious mind is built upon - depending upon which resources (Language, and other related cognitive resources), the conscious mind will effectively correlate to them - individual responses will be defined upon the resources used by the subconscious.

An example would be the dreaming mind; the subconscious uses distinctive resources to that of what is used during our waking mind; the brain allocates differentiated data (Abstract) in contrast to categorized data (Logical) during sleep - the mind consequently is influenced by these resources; during the waking reality, the brain allocates logical resources and thus, the conscious mind is influenced upon by logical data.

Despite this however, the conscious mind is aware and thus, is capable of performing individual decisions in contrast to automated thought; an individual can effectively manipulate an subconscious that ultimately influence themselves - or will shape to conscious desires (I.e. someone who wishes to become more feminine may be consequent to their subconscious shaping their conscious mind upon those desires; it effectively adapt to conscious desires).

I welcome your thoughts also; it's nice discussing with you.

I think a psychologist would disagree with this statement Doc -

'From a perspective of my study of the dreaming brain, there is no subconscious mind. Subconscious describes an influence upon the mind. '

The subconscious is regarded as a portion of our selves which lies beyond normal everyday consciousness, but which plays an important role in conscious activity and awareness.
It is impossible for the normal conscious mind to be aware of more than a couple of things at any given moment. The subconscious is that portion of our mind where our memories are stored and retrieved by the conscious mind. It could be said to hold ALL our memories, although much of them we are not conscious of, but their residue still affects our behaviors and thoughts. Which is why psychologists seek to access that portion of the mind in order to cure an imbalance which is visible in the patients behavior.

I would highly recommend getting hold of a copy of David J. Chalmers book - The Conscious Mind In search of a fundamental theory

It thoroughly explores the subject from a scientific and philosophical point of view and makes some very good points as well as making a very good argument against material orthodoxy.

I believe conscious, subconscious, unconscious are all labels we asribe to our perceptions of awareness of reality. Is there any way to describe it physiologically?

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…as I had initially mentioned, sub-conscious refers to something of which is subjective (below) conscious (awareness); it cannot decide or think. Despite this however, all automated functions from within the brain are essentially influenced by the mind, and thus vice versa; automated functions in turn effect the mind, influencing individual decisions.

Precisely my thoughts, which is why subconscious does not reference an aspect of the mind but merely an influence upon the mind; i.e, subconscious references an influence rather than a cognitive process.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Fundamentally, the conscious mind is dependent upon active automated functions from within the brain; or from what I view upon as the subconscious - it essentially provides the resources from which the conscious mind is built upon - depending upon which resources (Language, and other related cognitive resources), the conscious mind will effectively correlate to them - individual responses will be defined upon the resources used by the subconscious.

Although the autonomic functions of the brain sustain its ability to create a mind, those functions do not, in my opinion, define the nature of a mind. A mind, from my perspective, is an environment: subconscious is an influence upon or within that environment.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

An example would be the dreaming mind; the subconscious uses distinctive resources to that of what is used during our waking mind; the brain allocates differentiated data (Abstract) in contrast to categorized data (Logical) during sleep - the mind consequently is influenced by these resources; during the waking reality, the brain allocates logical resources and thus, the conscious mind is influenced upon by logical data.

Here again, the subconscious term references an influence. During dream sleep, the brain creates an unconscious environment of cognitive activity that is every bit as logical as the conscious environment it produces. Our dream experiences only appear illogical or abstract because we perceive and interpret them from a physical/material perspective instead of the mental perspective they define.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I think a psychologist would disagree …The subconscious is regarded as a portion of our selves which lies beyond normal everyday consciousness, but which plays an important role in conscious activity and awareness.

Most psychologist adhere to a classical perspective of the mind and its constituents. That perspective was forged in the last century by individuals who lack the insight of modern science. The perception of subconscious as a persona of self infers a degree of reasoning by that persona, which it simply does not have.

Originally Posted by Absum!

It is impossible for the normal conscious mind to be aware of more than a couple of things at any given moment.

In my view, brain function produces the conscious mind, which constructs conscious awareness. The conscious awareness that the mind builds is dependent on how the thought and perception processes of the mind are influenced by sensory data both internal and external to the brain. What we here, see, taste, touch, and smell influence the conscious mind, which determines the focus of our conscious awareness.

Originally Posted by Absum!

The subconscious is that portion of our mind where our memories are stored and retrieved by the conscious mind. It could be said to hold ALL our memories, although much of them we are not conscious of, but their residue still affects our behaviors and thoughts. Which is why psychologists seek to access that portion of the mind in order to cure an imbalance which is visible in the patients behavior.

From my study of brain function and the mind it constructs, memories are not compartmentalized into some “subconscious” space where they might remain in some vibrant form until retrieved. Memories are more like a dusty road we use to reach a particular behavioral or awareness destination: if we do not use that road often, it becomes overgrown with the weeds of forgetfulness until we eventual lose sight of its path. We are not “subconscious” of the memories we hold for future use, we are “unconscious” of those memories until their use. Subconscious suggests something of which we are not aware that influences us, while unconscious suggest our awareness but non-use of that something.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I would highly recommend getting hold of a copy of David J. Chalmers book - The Conscious Mind In search of a fundamental theory

It thoroughly explores the subject from a scientific and philosophical point of view and makes some very good points as well as making a very good argument against material orthodoxy.

I am unfamiliar with Chalmers book. Although I am sure his work is most informative, I doubt that it provides a neurologically objective perspective of his ideas. Most studies of the mind’s construct are predicated on behavioral observations that may or may not define or describe our mental core. Although surface eruptions (behaviors) can tell us much about the earth’s core (mind and brain), studying those eruptions may not tell us as much as a dissection of the core.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I believe conscious, subconscious, unconscious are all labels we asribe to our perceptions of awareness of reality. Is there any way to describe it physiologically?

Neurologically, by my study, there are only two quantifiable states of brain function: Conscious and unconscious. The conscious state of brain function is defined by the brain's afferent perception of somatic sensory experience. Physical sensory experiences enable our awareness of physical reality and activate those thought and perception processes associated with navigating physical/material experience. The unconscious state of brain function, as suggested by dream sleep, is defined by the brain’s diminished neurological connection to physical experience. Deactivation in the lower regions of the brainstem during atonic dream sleep subdue the influence of physical sensory on higher brain functions amid dream sleep. The dreaming brain is neurologically distinct from the conscious brain although both appear to exhibit similar levels of EEG activity. Dream sleep activates those regions of the brain associated with navigating mental reality. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…as I had initially mentioned, sub-conscious refers to something of which is subjective (below) conscious (awareness); it cannot decide or think. Despite this however, all automated functions from within the brain are essentially influenced by the mind, and thus vice versa; automated functions in turn effect the mind, influencing individual decisions.

Precisely my thoughts, which is why subconscious does not reference an aspect of the mind but merely an influence upon the mind; i.e, subconscious references an influence rather than a cognitive process.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Fundamentally, the conscious mind is dependent upon active automated functions from within the brain; or from what I view upon as the subconscious - it essentially provides the resources from which the conscious mind is built upon - depending upon which resources (Language, and other related cognitive resources), the conscious mind will effectively correlate to them - individual responses will be defined upon the resources used by the subconscious.

Although the autonomic functions of the brain sustain its ability to create a mind, those functions do not, in my opinion, define the nature of a mind. A mind, from my perspective, is an environment: subconscious is an influence upon or within that environment.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

An example would be the dreaming mind; the subconscious uses distinctive resources to that of what is used during our waking mind; the brain allocates differentiated data (Abstract) in contrast to categorized data (Logical) during sleep - the mind consequently is influenced by these resources; during the waking reality, the brain allocates logical resources and thus, the conscious mind is influenced upon by logical data.

Here again, the subconscious term references an influence. During dream sleep, the brain creates an unconscious environment of cognitive activity that is every bit as logical as the conscious environment it produces. Our dream experiences only appear illogical or abstract because we perceive and interpret them from a physical/material perspective instead of the mental perspective they define.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I think a psychologist would disagree …The subconscious is regarded as a portion of our selves which lies beyond normal everyday consciousness, but which plays an important role in conscious activity and awareness.

Most psychologist adhere to a classical perspective of the mind and its constituents. That perspective was forged in the last century by individuals who lack the insight of modern science. The perception of subconscious as a persona of self infers a degree of reasoning by that persona, which it simply does not have.

Originally Posted by Absum!

It is impossible for the normal conscious mind to be aware of more than a couple of things at any given moment.

In my view, brain function produces the conscious mind, which constructs conscious awareness. The conscious awareness that the mind builds is dependent on how the thought and perception processes of the mind are influenced by sensory data both internal and external to the brain. What we here, see, taste, touch, and smell influence the conscious mind, which determines the focus of our conscious awareness.

Originally Posted by Absum!

The subconscious is that portion of our mind where our memories are stored and retrieved by the conscious mind. It could be said to hold ALL our memories, although much of them we are not conscious of, but their residue still affects our behaviors and thoughts. Which is why psychologists seek to access that portion of the mind in order to cure an imbalance which is visible in the patients behavior.

From my study of brain function and the mind it constructs, memories are not compartmentalized into some “subconscious” space where they might remain in some vibrant form until retrieved. Memories are more like a dusty road we use to reach a particular behavioral or awareness destination: if we do not use that road often, it becomes overgrown with the weeds of forgetfulness until we eventual lose sight of its path. We are not “subconscious” of the memories we hold for future use, we are “unconscious” of those memories until their use. Subconscious suggests something of which we are not aware that influences us, while unconscious suggest our awareness but non-use of that something.

Originally Posted by Absum!

I would highly recommend getting hold of a copy of David J. Chalmers book - The Conscious Mind In search of a fundamental theory

It thoroughly explores the subject from a scientific and philosophical point of view and makes some very good points as well as making a very good argument against material orthodoxy.

I am unfamiliar with Chalmers book. Although I am sure his work is most informative, I doubt that it provides a neurologically objective perspective of his ideas. Most studies of the mind’s construct are predicated on behavioral observations that may or may not define or describe our mental core. Although surface eruptions (behaviors) can tell us much about the earth’s core (mind and brain), studying those eruptions may not tell us as much as a dissection of the core.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

I believe conscious, subconscious, unconscious are all labels we asribe to our perceptions of awareness of reality. Is there any way to describe it physiologically?

Neurologically, by my study, there are only two quantifiable states of brain function: Conscious and unconscious. The conscious state of brain function is defined by the brain's afferent perception of somatic sensory experience. Physical sensory experiences enable our awareness of physical reality and activate those thought and perception processes associated with navigating physical/material experience. The unconscious state of brain function, as suggested by dream sleep, is defined by the brain’s diminished neurological connection to physical experience. Deactivation in the lower regions of the brainstem during atonic dream sleep subdue the influence of physical sensory on higher brain functions amid dream sleep. The dreaming brain is neurologically distinct from the conscious brain although both appear to exhibit similar levels of EEG activity. Dream sleep activates those regions of the brain associated with navigating mental reality. I welcome your continued interest.

I believe we have reached upon an agreement; the subconscious is effectively an influence upon the conscious mind - it's merely just a highly sophisticated system that stores, manipulates, executes and processes data - the individuals perception, or consciousness rather is fundamentally based upon the data utilized. Despite this however, the brain is flexible and thus, can manipulate consciousness to differentiated appearances (Well, perceptions rather); it can reduce, expand and can enable further access to other resources from within itself to allow individual perception to manipulate to a given desire; it can also expand to the point at which memory is eidetic - and even further. Effectively, the subconscious - or unconscious, is the brain; the conscious mind is parts from which awareness is influenced from within the brain - the brain enables various portions for interpretation by sentience and thus, to become consciousness.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Effectively, the subconscious - or unconscious, is the brain; the conscious mind is parts from which awareness is influenced from within the brain - the brain enables various portions for interpretation by sentience and thus, to become consciousness.

If I may clarify my perspective, mind and brain are not the same. Our brain is a neurological machine and our mind is a product of that machine's activity; i.e., one creates the other. Subconscious and unconscious are also not the same in my view. Subconscious describes an influence: Unconscious describes a cognitive environment. Unconscious is like being in a room, while subconscious describes something in that room that affects our activities while there. The distinction between the activities of the conscious and unconscious is best represented by the distinction between the activities we might engage in a well lit environment (conscious) and those activities we might engage in total darkness (unconscious): In the first environment (light), we are able to perceive surrounding influences with a degree of clarity we do not have in the second environment (darkness). We may engage in both conscious and unconscious behaviors for either subconscious (covert) or conscious (overt) reasons.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Effectively, the subconscious - or unconscious, is the brain; the conscious mind is parts from which awareness is influenced from within the brain - the brain enables various portions for interpretation by sentience and thus, to become consciousness.

If I may clarify my perspective, mind and brain are not the same. Our brain is a neurological machine and our mind is a product of that machine's activity; i.e., one creates the other. Subconscious and unconscious are also not the same in my view. Subconscious describes an influence: Unconscious describes a cognitive environment. Unconscious is like being in a room, while subconscious describes something in that room that affects our activities while there. The distinction between the activities of the conscious and unconscious is best represented by the distinction between the activities we might engage in a well lit environment (conscious) and those activities we might engage in total darkness (unconscious): In the first environment (light), we are able to perceive surrounding influences with a degree of clarity we do not have in the second environment (darkness). We may engage in both conscious and unconscious behaviors for either subconscious (covert) or conscious (overt) reasons.

I know the mind and brain are not the same; the mind is a product of the brain - and I had stated this within my post. Also, from my perspective, the unconscious/subconscious can effectively be the same; the subconscious is subject to the individuals awareness - they have no awareness to the processes from within their brain - this can also be related upon as the unconscious. Despite this however, and in addition, the subconscious is layered; higher layers are consisted with thoughts and memories that have slipped below conscious awareness; average layers are effectively accessed during hypnosis and effect individual behavior, memories and thoughts; lower layers function upon primary essential aspects from within the individual - functions can range from cognitive functions, memory storage to organ control.

I guess there's quite some confusion with Psychology; there's no definition to that of which acts upon as a fundamental defense mechanism from within an individuals subjective awareness. An example of this would be how the mind prevents data from being integrated to a minor depth subject to the individuals consciousness; during dream states, or deep hypnotic trances, the mind still pertains a function from which negative data is restricted - negative suggestions won't bypass individual consciousness, but contrary to this positive suggestions acting upon the individuals desires will effectively integrate. The problem with this, is a lack of definition; fundamentally, the conscious mind is understood as a part in which the individual perceives reality, but is also active to prevent delusional experiences - once an individual becomes conscious of something that is non-existent, a placebo perhaps, the conscious mind will restrict the placebo from occurring, knowing that it was an act of the subconscious. Despite this, such constraints are likely to occur unconscious - or are to be a product of the subconscious - or fundamental mechanisms from within the brain - and thus, are required in order to prevent negative suggestions from effecting the conscious mind - or individual perception.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I know the mind and brain are not the same; the mind is a product of the brain - and I had stated this within my post. Also, from my perspective, the unconscious/subconscious can effectively be the same; the subconscious is subject to the individuals awareness - they have no awareness to the processes from within their brain - this can also be related upon as the unconscious.

I think there is a subtle difference between our perspectives. In your previous post you said, "Effectively, the subconscious - or unconscious, is the brain..." In my perspective, only unconscious describes a type of mind and, indeed, mind and brain are not the same. In my view, unconscious and subconscious cannot be the same because one describes a cognitive environment (unconscious) that arises from brain function, while the other (subconscious) does not. Cognitive environments (conscious and unconscious) create the consciousness that initiates our behaviors, while influences (subconscious) merely sway that consciousness towards certain behaviors.

There are influences upon our thoughts that sway behaviors we may not totally perceive or understand. It could be said that we are unconscious of those behaviors or unconscious of what motivates our behaviors. It may also be that some influences upon our behaviors could either be overt or covert. Here overt and covert describes how an influence is packaged, while unconscious describes how that package is delivered. In my view, subconscious describes the packaging of an influence. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I know the mind and brain are not the same; the mind is a product of the brain - and I had stated this within my post. Also, from my perspective, the unconscious/subconscious can effectively be the same; the subconscious is subject to the individuals awareness - they have no awareness to the processes from within their brain - this can also be related upon as the unconscious.

I think there is a subtle difference between our perspectives. In your previous post you said, "Effectively, the subconscious - or unconscious, is the brain..." In my perspective, only unconscious describes a type of mind and, indeed, mind and brain are not the same. In my view, unconscious and subconscious cannot be the same because one describes a cognitive environment (unconscious) that arises from brain function, while the other (subconscious) does not. Cognitive environments (conscious and unconscious) create the consciousness that initiates our behaviors, while influences (subconscious) merely sway that consciousness towards certain behaviors.

There are influences upon our thoughts that sway behaviors we may not totally perceive or understand. It could be said that we are unconscious of those behaviors or unconscious of what motivates our behaviors. It may also be that some influences upon our behaviors could either be overt or covert. Here overt and covert describes how an influence is packaged, while unconscious describes how that package is delivered. In my view, subconscious describes the packaging of an influence. I welcome your continued interest.

I can agree on this to an extent; either subconscious or unconscious - presuming unconscious is deeper to the subconscious, one enables for physiological effects to occur - perhaps unconscious is also the physiological effect upon an individual; their brain. To clarify; altering the unconscious can be consequent to physiological effects upon the individual; manipulation upon the subconscious will commit to psychological changes.

I also welcome your perspective; it's very interesting.

Doc

You are basing your ideas about consciousness on the biological level of the brain.

The only connection the conscious and unconscious have with the brain is that the brain contains the right conditions for it to exist.

Consciousness is not the brain biologically speaking. Activity of consciousness may be seen in the workings of the brain.

But biologists make the mistake of thinking the brain causes and creates consciousness.

It is actually consciousness which creates the brain, activating portions of it and causing it it to grow and develop.

Which then turns it into a chicken and egg problem.

So which came first? Consciousness or the brain?

Which then makes you wonder if it's consciousness which then produces brain activity, growth and development.
Prior to that biological development consciousness must have existed without the physical brain.

Consciousness is one of the most difficult things to study.

Originally Posted by Absum!

The only connection the conscious and unconscious have with the brain is that the brain contains the right conditions for it to exist.

To a certain degree, I agree.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Consciousness is not the brain biologically speaking. Activity of consciousness may be seen in the workings of the brain.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Absum!

But biologists make the mistake of thinking the brain causes and creates consciousness. It is actually consciousness which creates the brain, activating portions of it and causing it it to grow and develop.

I disagree; consciousness, as it relates to the thought and perception processes of a mind, empirically cannot exist without an underlying neurological structure as its progenitor. If we use your perspective of consciousness, then a flower that opens its petals to the sun’s rays could be perceived as having consciousness.

To determine whether a flower has true consciousness, we would have to apply some measure to the nature of that flower based on examples of consciousness we understand or that we are capable of understanding. Humanity is the only measure of consciousness we understand or capable of understanding because humanity has a reciprocity of understanding within itself that it cannot currently achieve with other forms of life; i.e., we can communicate our thoughts and experiences between each other better than we can with other life forms.

From the example humanity appears to exhibit, consciousness is that abiding awareness of self that is cognizant of its distinction and existence apart from surrounding influence and experience.; i.e., consciousness is our sense of self and knowing that we exist. Sunlight may activate movement of flower petals and photosynthesis may cause a flower to grow, however such movement and growth is not evidence of sentience. As a side note, some have suggested sentience in plants through experiments that have shown plant growth responding to human emotions and attention. It is more likely that such growth has a correlation with the additional degree of carbon dioxide exposure such emotions and attention may provide.

The clearest example of consciousness as a product of brain function is suggested by the distinction between the awake and dream states of our awareness. When we are awake, we are aware of our existence in physical reality because of the active state in the region of the brainstem (metencephalon) through which physical sensory traverse to reach upper brain regions. When we dream, that region enters a state of partial cessation where physical sensory experiences (tactile and aural) do not enter the brain as they do during our conscious state; i.e., we are not as aware of sounds and physical sensations while dreaming as we are while awake. Because physical sensory to the dreaming brain is subdued, we are not aware, while dreaming, that our dream experiences aren’t physical reality. When functioning without abnormality, the consciousness our brain creates while awake is aware that its experiences are real. The consciousness our brain creates while dreaming is not aware that its experiences aren’t real.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Which then turns it into a chicken and egg problem. So which came first? Consciousness or the brain?

If consciousness existed before some neural structure, what was its nature? Perceiving or reacting to influences is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence of consciousness. Although a rockslide, for example, may dislodge a boulder and cause it to roll, this is not evidence that the rockslide or the reaction of the boulder suggests consciousness in either. By further example, hydrogen can combine with oxygen atoms in nature to create water: should we consider such chemical reactions evidence of consciousness? To set a standard for consciousness beyond the measure humanity exhibits borders on faith not science--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...altering the unconscious can be consequent to physiological effects upon the individual; manipulation upon the subconscious will commit to psychological changes.

I think that both our conscious and unconscious minds can be influenced. Such influence can shape the consciousness those minds create. When I began my study of brain evolution, I was surprised at how simple and complex the mind is truly. Much of our mainstream perspective of the mind, in my opinion, is imprecise because of the failure of researchers to explore the true origins of the brain. The human brain didn't arise with our apelike ancestors; it arose with the very first evidence of life on earth. When we explore and track such evidence to contemporary brain structure, we find precise definitions for mind and consciousness and explanations for why we have memory, why we dream, and why we frequently experience a host of mental afflictions. Beyond this, there is evidence which suggests that mainstream understanding of brain structural function is also imprecise. A precise understanding of structural function explains why so much of normal brain function rebounds after traumatic brain injury. Even the mysteries of brain function, such as ESP, telepathy, precognition, autism, schizophrenia, etc., has some definable basis in how the brain evolved. I uncovered such insight during my study of how the brain evolved to dream. It amazes me how little interests there is in discussing the nature of brain evolution given the enormity of insight it may yield.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by Absum!

The only connection the conscious and unconscious have with the brain is that the brain contains the right conditions for it to exist.

To a certain degree, I agree.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Consciousness is not the brain biologically speaking. Activity of consciousness may be seen in the workings of the brain.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Absum!

But biologists make the mistake of thinking the brain causes and creates consciousness. It is actually consciousness which creates the brain, activating portions of it and causing it it to grow and develop.

I disagree; consciousness, as it relates to the thought and perception processes of a mind, empirically cannot exist without an underlying neurological structure as its progenitor. If we use your perspective of consciousness, then a flower that opens its petals to the sun’s rays could be perceived as having consciousness.

To determine whether a flower has true consciousness, we would have to apply some measure to the nature of that flower based on examples of consciousness we understand or that we are capable of understanding. Humanity is the only measure of consciousness we understand or capable of understanding because humanity has a reciprocity of understanding within itself that it cannot currently achieve with other forms of life; i.e., we can communicate our thoughts and experiences between each other better than we can with other life forms.

From the example humanity appears to exhibit, consciousness is that abiding awareness of self that is cognizant of its distinction and existence apart from surrounding influence and experience.; i.e., consciousness is our sense of self and knowing that we exist. Sunlight may activate movement of flower petals and photosynthesis may cause a flower to grow, however such movement and growth is not evidence of sentience. As a side note, some have suggested sentience in plants through experiments that have shown plant growth responding to human emotions and attention. It is more likely that such growth has a correlation with the additional degree of carbon dioxide exposure such emotions and attention may provide.

The clearest example of consciousness as a product of brain function is suggested by the distinction between the awake and dream states of our awareness. When we are awake, we are awareness of our existence in physical reality because of the active state in the region of the brainstem (metencephalon) through which physical sensory traverse to reach upper brain regions. When we dream, that region enters a state of partial cessation where physical sensory experiences (tactile and aural) do not enter the brain as they do during our conscious state; i.e., we are not as aware of sounds and physical sensations while dreaming as we are while awake. Because physical sensory to the dreaming brain is subdued, we are not aware, while dreaming, that our dream experiences aren’t physical reality. When functioning without abnormality, the consciousness our brain creates while awake is aware that its experiences are real. The consciousness our brain creates while dreaming is not aware that its experiences aren’t real.

Originally Posted by Absum!

Which then turns it into a chicken and egg problem. So which came first? Consciousness or the brain?

If consciousness existed before some neural structure, what was its nature? Perceiving or reacting to influences is not, in my opinion, sufficient evidence of consciousness. Although a rockslide, for example, may dislodge a boulder and cause it to roll, this is not evidence that the rockslide or the reaction of the boulder suggests consciousness in either. By further example, hydrogen can combine with oxygen atoms in nature to create water: should we consider such chemical reactions evidence of consciousness? To set a standard for consciousness beyond the measure humanity exhibits borders on faith not science--in my opinion.

Neuroscience introduces a key fundamental aspect from which it suggests that we're the brain and that destruction of the brain is consequent to eternal death of individual sentience. Despite this however, there are many other aspects aside from neuroscience to look throughout in order to conclude this as plausible; personally, I don't believe it's plausible that if the brain is destroyed, one will cease to exist for all eternity - it's a philosophical issue that can be solved through physics, and neurology - if no evidence is ever found to display sentience from within the brain, then we can conclude that the brain doesn't provide awareness but is rather an attribute; the brain produces consciousness upon pure awareness.

Initially, I had thought about this hard over the years, wondering why and how I came to be me - and not something, or someone else. Throughout the entire existence of awareness from within life, I could have been anything else - but what is it that separates my sentience from others? - It's not my brain, my brain consists of the same structure to anything else. Now.. before anyone rants to me of why it should be some magical form of existence; it won't be - it's likely to be a law, as with the law of gravity and many others. As with gravity, we haven't discovered the fundamental particles and are said to be invisible but are existent; they have weight.

Ultimately, this is also a question for theoretical physics; what is beyond the Universe? - and what created this structure of life?

In addition to the existence of the universe, we can also search through multiple dimensions - and even M theory; it's speculated that there may be more universes beyond our present.

Despite this, it all comes down to the primary and initial question: is life finite? - Is there a definite start and end? - If it started, then nothing prior had occurred and thus, the latter won't occur following the cease of life?

Though despite this, personally I believe life to be infinite and if it's infinite, this ultimately suggests that awareness is not a product of the brain but a product of something else - but how and where is this particle, much like a graviton - and how will we discover this? There are many reasons as to why life is infinite also; multiple dimensions; there had to be a first and a second before our own - and it's also believed that time is the forth and that there will be many beyond the forth - or at least up until the tenth.

In addition to infinite, many believe the universe started with a big bang and prior, matter existed - and prior to this, nothing - and time initiated upon during matter; but how? If matter created time, what created matter? There needs to be something to initiate matter in order for it to create time - and thus, I'm against this speculation. I personally believe that it was infinite; time has always existed and as a result of time existing forever - consisted with no beginning nor end, anything has had its chance to exist. I'm pretty sure that all possibilities - infinite possibilities - existences - have all occurred during an infinite existence of time.

To clarify, if time has existed for infinite and thus, is fundamentally infinite, then there has been enough time for an infinite amount of possibilities, existences and occurrences to occur. However, more importantly, why should we be aware - exist once during an infinite amount of time? Think about it, how could we possibly proceed throughout an infinite amount of time, only to exist once... it's impossible - we've existed before.

This also suggests that we're more than a brain; it's more like.. the brain is a product of ourselves. Though, whatever happens beyond the destruction of the brain is unknown, but we can speculate on the account of NDE's (Near death experiences) and other phenomenon's, and can correlate them to neuroscience and other fundamental subjects.

The problem is that we're unable to conclude that sentience is a fundamental particle of individual existence - but has to be if time and life is infinite, and has become a major difficulty in comprehending individual awareness. Manipulation of the brain is subject to the reduction of consciousness, but we have yet to discover to which aspect is responsible for pure awareness - if there is one. As I had initially stated from within this post, it's quite possible that awareness is much like a law to gravity - we can't see the particle, but it exists.

During our dream states, we are aware as we our now, but not in the same perspective; our consciousness is altered but our initial awareness remains.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...altering the unconscious can be consequent to physiological effects upon the individual; manipulation upon the subconscious will commit to psychological changes.

I think that both our conscious and unconscious minds can be influenced. Such influence can shape the consciousness those minds create. When I began my study of brain evolution, I was surprised at how simple and complex the mind is truly. Much of our mainstream perspective of the mind, in my opinion, is imprecise because of the failure of researchers to explore the true origins of the brain. The human brain didn't arise with our apelike ancestors; it arose with the very first evidence of life on earth. When we explore and track such evidence to contemporary brain structure, we find precise definitions for mind and consciousness and explanations for why we have memory, why we dream, and why we frequently experience a host of mental afflictions. Beyond this, there is evidence which suggests that mainstream understanding of brain structural function is also imprecise. A precise understanding of structural function explains why so much of normal brain function rebounds after traumatic brain injury. Even the mysteries of brain function, such as ESP, telepathy, precognition, autism, schizophrenia, etc., has some definable basis in how the brain evolved. I uncovered such insight during my study of how the brain evolved to dream. It amazes me how little interests there is in discussing the nature of brain evolution given the enormity of insight it may yield.

I agree that it's essential for brain evolution to be uncovered, as it will increase our understanding of the brain drastically in comparison to our present understanding.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Neuroscience introduces a key fundamental aspect from which it suggests that we're the brain and that destruction of the brain is consequent to eternal death of individual sentience. Despite this however, there are many other aspects aside from neuroscience to look throughout in order to conclude this as plausible; personally, I don't believe it's plausible that if the brain is destroyed, one will cease to exist for all eternity…

Although I believe brain function creates consciousness, I’m not suggesting that such function is all there is to consciousness. What I am suggesting is that all we are capable of knowing or understanding about consciousness can only be scientifically assessed through our study of the brain and brain function. Although we may postulate or philosophize about the existence of consciousness before the brain or after its death, we cannot prove that existence scientifically to any rational degree of certainty without testable examples--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Initially, I had thought about this hard over the years, wondering why and how I came to be me - and not something, or someone else…but what is it that separates my sentience from others? - It's not my brain, my brain consists of the same structure to anything else…it's likely to be a law, as with the law of gravity…we haven't discovered the fundamental particles…this is also a question for theoretical physics…it all comes down to the primary and initial question: is life finite?

I do not think consciousness and life define the same quality. Terrestrially, life is biological existence; e.g., a flower is a form of life, biologically, that is without the quality of consciousness as suggested by the only example we are capable of truly evaluting--humanity.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Is there a definite start and end? - If it started, then nothing prior had occurred and thus, the latter won't occur following the cease of life?

Like my thoughts on the origin of the universe, I believe that something cannot originate from nothing. Even if some particle of our consciousness persists after death, that particle had an origin. As a side note, my study of after-death-contact (ADC) dream experiences suggests there may be some evidence of the persistence of consciousness beyond the veil of death. Very often, children will experience odd dreams about a visit from a departed family member at the moment of that member’s death. Interestingly, those children and some adults who experience these ADC dreams appear to have knowledge of the death before being told of its occurrence.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

To clarify, if time has existed for infinite and thus, is fundamentally infinite, then there has been enough time for an infinite amount of possibilities, existences and occurrences to occur.

Very interesting perspective!

Originally Posted by blue_space87

During our dream states, we are aware as we our now, but not in the same perspective; our consciousness is altered but our initial awareness remains.

From my study of dream sleep, I can definitively state that our consciousness while awake is not the same as our consciousness during the dreaming state of brain function. When you dream, you are probably not aware within the dream that your experiences are in fact a dream. This should be sufficient evidence of the distinction between the conscious and unconscious awareness your brain creates. The reason you may not have contemporaneous awareness of being within a dream while dreaming is because your unconscious brain does not receive the kind of physical sensory information that allows it to distinguish reality. This evinces how brain function defines the nature of mind and consciousness.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Neuroscience introduces a key fundamental aspect from which it suggests that we're the brain and that destruction of the brain is consequent to eternal death of individual sentience. Despite this however, there are many other aspects aside from neuroscience to look throughout in order to conclude this as plausible; personally, I don't believe it's plausible that if the brain is destroyed, one will cease to exist for all eternity…

Although I believe brain function creates consciousness, I’m not suggesting that such function is all there is to consciousness. What I am suggesting is that all we are capable of knowing or understanding about consciousness can only be scientifically assessed through our study of the brain and brain function. Although we may postulate or philosophize about the existence of consciousness before the brain or after its death, we cannot prove that existence scientifically to any rational degree of certainty without testable examples--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Initially, I had thought about this hard over the years, wondering why and how I came to be me - and not something, or someone else…but what is it that separates my sentience from others? - It's not my brain, my brain consists of the same structure to anything else…it's likely to be a law, as with the law of gravity…we haven't discovered the fundamental particles…this is also a question for theoretical physics…it all comes down to the primary and initial question: is life finite?

I do not think consciousness and life define the same quality. Terrestrially, life is biological existence; e.g., a flower is a form of life, biologically, that is without the quality of consciousness as suggested by the only example we are capable of truly evaluting--humanity.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Is there a definite start and end? - If it started, then nothing prior had occurred and thus, the latter won't occur following the cease of life?

Like my thoughts on the origin of the universe, I believe that something cannot originate from nothing. Even if some particle of our consciousness persists after death, that particle had an origin. As a side note, my study of after-death-contact (ADC) dream experiences suggests there may be some evidence of the persistence of consciousness beyond the veil of death. Very often, children will experience odd dreams about a visit from a departed family member at the moment of that member’s death. Interestingly, those children and some adults who experience these ADC dreams appear to have knowledge of the death before being told of its occurrence.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

To clarify, if time has existed for infinite and thus, is fundamentally infinite, then there has been enough time for an infinite amount of possibilities, existences and occurrences to occur.

Very interesting perspective!

Originally Posted by blue_space87

During our dream states, we are aware as we our now, but not in the same perspective; our consciousness is altered but our initial awareness remains.

From my study of dream sleep, I can definitively state that our consciousness while awake is not the same as our consciousness during the dreaming state of brain function. When you dream, you are probably not aware within the dream that your experiences are in fact a dream. This should be sufficient evidence of the distinction between the conscious and unconscious awareness your brain creates. The reason you may not have contemporaneous awareness of being within a dream while dreaming is because your unconscious brain does not receive the kind of physical sensory information that allows it to distinguish reality. This evinces how brain function defines the nature of mind and consciousness.

I agree that we may not - not suggesting that we can't and that we might at some point - and thus, we may not discover physical - or scientific rather, evidence of initial sentience. That is to say, that we may not discover that of what is responsible for developing awareness. However, despite this, we can display plausible scientific evidence upon the workings of consciousness, to a degree; we can strip it from the present but are unable to find that of which is responsible for awareness. For instance, we can remove portions of the brain that are responsible for developing language, sight and can impact upon an individuals thought - we're effecting consciousness, and displaying its key fundamentals. Contrary to this however, we haven't found anything that produces awareness - and why, and it may be that the brain does produce awareness - and more importantly, the brain is capable of manipulating awareness. Both conscious and unconscious, both of which are evidence of how the brain alters awareness; it triggers it to become both rational and abstract - and following my initial conclusion on life being infinite (Considering that time is infinite and thus, and infinite occurrences and existences must have occurred - and it's thus, possible for them all to be simultaneously occurring now, before and after (the present)) - it seems that the brain is the evolution to sentience; it's a product to awareness rather than to be the center, and is a system - or organism rather, that enables for the initial awareness to perceive a given reality. This appears consequent to life being infinite; it's never ending loop, and is thus infinite. Evidence of infinite exists in many other subjects, and most significantly; math - numbers can proceed to an infinite capacity - they will never end. And it's possible that if something that is infinite in existence, then it expands life from being finite to infinite. Sorry about the off-topic (hehe), I can remember discussing this with someone two years ago and I had ended up creating the speculation that there are more than one infinite; it's like time, there has to be more than one time-line. However, it's more likely that there an infinite amount of dimensions before physical existence (If you're familiar with the 10th dimension speculation, you'll notice that the 10th is infinite squeezed into a point, and an important philosophical question is introduced from this also: was there ever an initial point - a single point with nothing else? If so, what created the point? How did it exist from nothing? - It's quite likely that there was no initial point, and that all initial points branched off towards the 10th and thus, it continuously repeats!)

Despite all this, I do agree with you - and I do believe that we exist prior, during the present and after the brain - but I do agree that there is evidence lacking this justification; it's mostly philosophical. In addition to this, the speculation also lacks the integrity to the scientific method and is currently unable to be proven, and thus, remains philosophical.

I also agree that consciousness is biological, and again, to a degree - it's a product of science.

I've found many interesting stories based on individual NDE's, most of which suggest that consciousness occurs beyond the ceasing of brain function. However, how the individual pertains memory along with cognitive ability is unknown, it's likely that awareness is perpetuated rather than consciousness. Also, here are two very interesting videos on the topic you may have interest in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crRm9lIzRmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCn2c...eature=related

And I also agree that our consciousness isn't identical to our waking states; portions of the brain are altered consequent to dreaming, and thus, consciousness is altered - and the same effect applies to the waking state. Psychologically discussing, it appears that the conscious mind is fundamentally reduced, but not completely; the conscious mind is reduced from regulating the individuals perception. An example of how the conscious mind (In one of my previous posts, I mentioned of a lack of integrity within Psychology; there is no proper definition to the component that restricts individual perception - and is mostly referred upon as the conscious mind) reduces perception is the placebo effect; when an individual is subject to authoritative belief, they feel the effects almost immediately depending on the suggestions given. However, in contrast, if the individual is conscious of the placebo, it won't work - evidence of how a particular mechanism of the brain restricts the individuals perception.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…we can remove portions of the brain that are responsible for developing language, sight and can impact upon an individuals thought - we're effecting consciousness, and displaying its key fundamentals. Contrary to this however, we haven't found anything that produces awareness - and why, and it may be that the brain does produce awareness - and more importantly, the brain is capable of manipulating awareness. Both conscious and unconscious, both of which are evidence of how the brain alters awareness; it triggers it to become both rational and abstract…

If I understand correctly, you equate consciousness with life. If so, my view is that all life is not conscious life; i.e., not all species of life suggest consciousness. Consciousness, in my opinion, is the essence of awareness rather than the essence of life. Further still, having a brain does not suggest that every species is capable of the kind of thought and perception processes suggestive of humanlike consciousness. Certainly, there are some species whose brain structure suggest an ability to form mental environments similar to humanity, but these are not true for all forms of life.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Sorry about the off-topic (hehe), I can remember discussing this with someone two years ago and I had ended up creating the speculation that there are more than one infinite…was there ever an initial point - a single point with nothing else? If so, what created the point? How did it exist from nothing? - It's quite likely that there was no initial point, and that all initial points branched off towards the 10th and thus, it continuously repeats!

Philosophically speaking, nothing’s just is; everything comes from something and that something comes from something else. Even if one believes in the existence of some supreme consciousness or life form, that entity came from somewhere. No amount of debate could convince me that something or some entity created its own existence. All things had a beginning and to believe otherwise is beyond reason--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Despite all this, I do agree with you - and I do believe that we exist prior, during the present and after the brain - but I do agree that there is evidence lacking this justification; it's mostly philosophical. In addition to this, the speculation also lacks the integrity to the scientific method and is currently unable to be proven, and thus, remains philosophical.

I think the jury’s still out on whether we, as consciousness, existed before our present life. There may be credible evidence supporting reincarnation but such evidence can be explained by the remarkable abilities of brain function and its perception processes.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I also agree that consciousness is biological, and again, to a degree - it's a product of science.

Life is biological in my view; consciousness is merely a result of life’s neurological processes. Just a clarification.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I've found many interesting stories based on individual NDE's, most of which suggest that consciousness occurs beyond the ceasing of brain function. However, how the individual pertains memory along with cognitive ability is unknown, it's likely that awareness is perpetuated rather than consciousness.

There is demonstrative evidence suggesting how the brain produces NDE. From my understanding of the dreaming brain, such experiences are likely how the unconscious mind interprets the experience of death; i.e., NDE may merely be an interpretation instead of some actual experience.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I also agree that our consciousness isn't identical to our waking states; portions of the brain are altered consequent to dreaming, and thus, consciousness is altered - and the same effect applies to the waking state.

The distinction I’ve uncovered is that the unconscious brain is unencumbered by the sensory experiences of physical reality. In the active state of dream sleep, the brain is free to indulge purely mental experience. The faux experience of physical reality in dreams that we hold as memories upon waking are merely how our conscious mind interprets its unconscious experience. Dream memories suggest the way our conscious mind applies its values and perspective to experiences devoid of true physical/material influence.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…we can remove portions of the brain that are responsible for developing language, sight and can impact upon an individuals thought - we're effecting consciousness, and displaying its key fundamentals. Contrary to this however, we haven't found anything that produces awareness - and why, and it may be that the brain does produce awareness - and more importantly, the brain is capable of manipulating awareness. Both conscious and unconscious, both of which are evidence of how the brain alters awareness; it triggers it to become both rational and abstract…

If I understand correctly, you equate consciousness with life. If so, my view is that all life is not conscious life; i.e., not all species of life suggest consciousness. Consciousness, in my opinion, is the essence of awareness rather than the essence of life. Further still, having a brain does not suggest that every species is capable of the kind of thought and perception processes suggestive of humanlike consciousness. Certainly, there are some species whose brain structure suggest an ability to form mental environments similar to humanity, but these are not true for all forms of life.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Sorry about the off-topic (hehe), I can remember discussing this with someone two years ago and I had ended up creating the speculation that there are more than one infinite…was there ever an initial point - a single point with nothing else? If so, what created the point? How did it exist from nothing? - It's quite likely that there was no initial point, and that all initial points branched off towards the 10th and thus, it continuously repeats!

Philosophically speaking, nothing’s just is; everything comes from something and that something comes from something else. Even if one believes in the existence of some supreme consciousness or life form, that entity came from somewhere. No amount of debate could convince me that something or some entity created its own existence. All things had a beginning and to believe otherwise is beyond reason--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Despite all this, I do agree with you - and I do believe that we exist prior, during the present and after the brain - but I do agree that there is evidence lacking this justification; it's mostly philosophical. In addition to this, the speculation also lacks the integrity to the scientific method and is currently unable to be proven, and thus, remains philosophical.

I think the jury’s still out on whether we, as consciousness, existed before our present life. There may be credible evidence supporting reincarnation but such evidence can be explained by the remarkable abilities of brain function and its perception processes.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I also agree that consciousness is biological, and again, to a degree - it's a product of science.

Life is biological in my view; consciousness is merely a result of life’s neurological processes. Just a clarification.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I've found many interesting stories based on individual NDE's, most of which suggest that consciousness occurs beyond the ceasing of brain function. However, how the individual pertains memory along with cognitive ability is unknown, it's likely that awareness is perpetuated rather than consciousness.

There is demonstrative evidence suggesting how the brain produces NDE. From my understanding of the dreaming brain, such experiences are likely how the unconscious mind interprets the experience of death; i.e., NDE may merely be an interpretation instead of some actual experience.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I also agree that our consciousness isn't identical to our waking states; portions of the brain are altered consequent to dreaming, and thus, consciousness is altered - and the same effect applies to the waking state.

The distinction I’ve uncovered is that the unconscious brain is unencumbered by the sensory experiences of physical reality. In the active state of dream sleep, the brain is free to indulge purely mental experience. The faux experience of physical reality in dreams that we hold as memories upon waking are merely how our conscious mind interprets its unconscious experience. Dream memories suggest the way our conscious mind applies its values and perspective to experiences devoid of true physical/material influence.

I wasn't identifying all forms of life as with consisted with sentience, but rather that some of which are aware can be identified upon as self-existence; it's your pure existence subtracted from your physical form - and pure existence may well be physical. If you refer back to my previous posts, I suggested that if life indeed is ultimate infinite, then there has to be something that enables ourselves to live life again from death - something that separates our awareness from others (Awareness without cognitive ability; this is not consciousness, and thus, is sentience) - stops you from being another and ultimately identifies you as you; and enables you to experience life over and over again. I do agree with you to an extent; brain function does defy consciousness but rather the integrations upon sentience from which pure awareness becomes consciousness; a more sophisticated form of awareness.

The philosophical query I introduced was based upon existence; if existence is existed - a physical form - or matter rather, then what created matter - and what created that of which created matter - and so forth; you develop a paradox - an infinite - life (From my perspective).

As I had initially mentioned, brain function from my perspective may integrate upon sentience rather than to create it. This justification has evolved from the correlation from neuroscience to other varying subjects; by justifying an infinite life - I conclude that brain function integrates upon the fundamentals, rather than to initiate upon both; cease of brain function is consequent to a lack of integrations - cognitive abilities, rather than for the removal of initial awareness.

NDE's are indeed based upon the conscious interpretation during an unconscious state; throughout my previous posts, I had suggested that the conscious mind is reduced rather than to be disabled - the individuals cognitive abilities and rational thought is temporarily constrained as opposed to all and awareness being disabled. Despite the triggering response from the brain inducing NDE's (Essentially, the brain released hallucigenic chemicals resulting in the individual experiencing an inner sense of reality; a near-death experience), a question that may be asked is why - why is it essential for the brain to induce such experiences during a given time?

Although dreams are fundamentally dependent upon both conscious and unconscious experiences, dreams are experienced consciously (If you're implying that dreams aren't experienced but interpreted consciously upon awakening) and mostly through a reduced state; in order for the individual experience an unconscious environment, a reduction upon rational thought is required - similar effects from dreaming are also noticed during hypnotic states - the individuals cognitive abilities are reduced and experiences are mostly internal (An internal sense of reality). I find it difficult to believe that we would interpret our dream memory rather than to experience the dream itself; if this was positive, how else would lucid dreaming be possible? - and how could we experience two forms of reality simultaneously? I.e. We experience both the present reality - and the dream interpretation at the same time. Personally, I don't believe we time jump from falling unconscious; sleep - to awakening.

Despite this, I welcome your thoughts - this has been a very interesting discussion, and I thank you.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

The philosophical query I introduced was based upon existence; if existence is existed - a physical form - or matter rather, then what created matter - and what created that of which created matter - and so forth; you develop a paradox - an infinite - life (From my perspective).

I agree; an infinite paradox indeed! The only explanation appears to be metaphysical--which flies against all substantial methods of investigation.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I conclude that brain function integrates upon the fundamentals, rather than to initiate upon both; cease of brain function is consequent to a lack of integrations - cognitive abilities, rather than for the removal of initial awareness.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that cessation of brain function results in an ending of cognition rather than an ending of consciousness. Existentially, consciousness may continue after cessation of brain function; however, it is beyond our current ability to test this idea. So, indeed, such ideas become a matter of philosophy and faith. Although I consider myself a man of science, my study of the dreaming brain suggests there may be more to consciousness than what ends at the moment of brain death. If not for my own private experiences, I would certainly affirm the idea of one life and one existence without reservations.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

NDE's are indeed based upon the conscious interpretation during an unconscious state; throughout my previous posts, I had suggested that the conscious mind is reduced rather than to be disabled - the individuals cognitive abilities and rational thought is temporarily constrained as opposed to all and awareness being disabled.

In my view, the cognitive abilities and rational thought of the mind during its unconscious dream state is not constrained; i.e., the unconscious state of brain function creates a consciousness that is every bit as logical and rational as its conscious (awake) state. Our awake brain perceives dreams as illogical or irrational because the dreaming brain does not operate on a level of experience that conforms to the physical/material logic and reason of the awake brain. The dreaming brain conforms to a type of mental logic with define and simple rules of reason, which most of us do not understand. Our conscious lack of understanding is what makes our dreams appear illogical, which is only an appearance.

The unconscious mind is unrestrained by the logic, rules, and perception of physical reality; therefore, it can create a consciousness that is more liberated, perceptive, and expansive than could the conscious mind create. The suppression of sensory experience by brain function during dream sleep allows the dreaming brain to operate at a more evolved level of function. Our unconscious mind is truly the essence of mental awareness unbiased and unencumbered by physical/material experience.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Despite the triggering response from the brain inducing NDE's (Essentially, the brain released hallucigenic chemicals resulting in the individual experiencing an inner sense of reality; a near-death experience), a question that may be asked is why - why is it essential for the brain to induce such experiences during a given time?

One explanation could be that the brain is evolved to interpret our experiences--whether those experiences are wakeful, dream, or death. At the moment of death, it certainly seems logical that the brain would interpret the experience as joining those who had gone before--thus the imagery of being welcomed by the departed.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

… in order for the individual experience an unconscious [dream] environment, a reduction upon rational thought is required - similar effects from dreaming are also noticed during hypnotic states - the individuals cognitive abilities are reduced and experiences are mostly internal (An internal sense of reality).

From my study, the unconscious environment is not a reduction of rational thought. Physical/material reality causes our mind to perceive and interpret experiences from a literal perspective of their influences; i.e., conscious (wakeful) experience is perceived as having real or material consequences to be reasoned from the perspective of their literal impact. This occurs because of the conscious brain's connection to true physical/material experience. The unconscious environment involves rational thought processing without the realization that physical/material sensory experience causes.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I find it difficult to believe that we would interpret our dream memory rather than to experience the dream itself; if this was positive, how else would lucid dreaming be possible? - and how could we experience two forms of reality simultaneously? I.e. We experience both the present reality - and the dream interpretation at the same time. Personally, I don't believe we time jump from falling unconscious; sleep - to awakening.

The answer is that lucid dream experiences are also interpretations of experience. Awareness of being within a dream while dreaming (lucid dreaming) is also a device which the unconscious mind uses to conveys its perception of a mental experience. As I mentioned, dreams are the purely mental experiences of the unconscious mind, which the conscious mind interprets from a literal (physical/material) perspective. Such experiences are like the realization in wakeful reality that some occurrence is all in one’s head or a product of one’s imagination and mental processes; i.e., it suggests one’s realization of the true nature of one’s experience. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

The philosophical query I introduced was based upon existence; if existence is existed - a physical form - or matter rather, then what created matter - and what created that of which created matter - and so forth; you develop a paradox - an infinite - life (From my perspective).

I agree; an infinite paradox indeed! The only explanation appears to be metaphysical--which flies against all substantial methods of investigation.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I conclude that brain function integrates upon the fundamentals, rather than to initiate upon both; cease of brain function is consequent to a lack of integrations - cognitive abilities, rather than for the removal of initial awareness.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that cessation of brain function results in an ending of cognition rather than an ending of consciousness. Existentially, consciousness may continue after cessation of brain function; however, it is beyond our current ability to test this idea. So, indeed, such ideas become a matter of philosophy and faith. Although I consider myself a man of science, my study of the dreaming brain suggests there may be more to consciousness than what ends at the moment of brain death. If not for my own private experiences, I would certainly affirm the idea of one life and one existence without reservations.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

NDE's are indeed based upon the conscious interpretation during an unconscious state; throughout my previous posts, I had suggested that the conscious mind is reduced rather than to be disabled - the individuals cognitive abilities and rational thought is temporarily constrained as opposed to all and awareness being disabled.

In my view, the cognitive abilities and rational thought of the mind during its unconscious dream state is not constrained; i.e., the unconscious state of brain function creates a consciousness that is every bit as logical and rational as its conscious (awake) state. Our awake brain perceives dreams as illogical or irrational because the dreaming brain does not operate on a level of experience that conforms to the physical/material logic and reason of the awake brain. The dreaming brain conforms to a type of mental logic with define and simple rules of reason, which most of us do not understand. Our conscious lack of understanding is what makes our dreams appear illogical, which is only an appearance.

The unconscious mind is unrestrained by the logic, rules, and perception of physical reality; therefore, it can create a consciousness that is more liberated, perceptive, and expansive than could the conscious mind create. The suppression of sensory experience by brain function during dream sleep allows the dreaming brain to operate at a more evolved level of function. Our unconscious mind is truly the essence of mental awareness unbiased and unencumbered by physical/material experience.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Despite the triggering response from the brain inducing NDE's (Essentially, the brain released hallucigenic chemicals resulting in the individual experiencing an inner sense of reality; a near-death experience), a question that may be asked is why - why is it essential for the brain to induce such experiences during a given time?

One explanation could be that the brain is evolved to interpret our experiences--whether those experiences are wakeful, dream, or death. At the moment of death, it certainly seems logical that the brain would interpret the experience as joining those who had gone before--thus the imagery of being welcomed by the departed.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

… in order for the individual experience an unconscious [dream] environment, a reduction upon rational thought is required - similar effects from dreaming are also noticed during hypnotic states - the individuals cognitive abilities are reduced and experiences are mostly internal (An internal sense of reality).

From my study, the unconscious environment is not a reduction of rational thought. Physical/material reality causes our mind to perceive and interpret experiences from a literal perspective of their influences; i.e., conscious (wakeful) experience is perceived as having real or material consequences to be reasoned from the perspective of their literal impact. This occurs because of the conscious brain's connection to true physical/material experience. The unconscious environment involves rational thought processing without the realization that physical/material sensory experience causes.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I find it difficult to believe that we would interpret our dream memory rather than to experience the dream itself; if this was positive, how else would lucid dreaming be possible? - and how could we experience two forms of reality simultaneously? I.e. We experience both the present reality - and the dream interpretation at the same time. Personally, I don't believe we time jump from falling unconscious; sleep - to awakening.

The answer is that lucid dream experiences are also interpretations of experience. Awareness of being within a dream while dreaming (lucid dreaming) is also a device which the unconscious mind uses to conveys its perception of a mental experience. As I mentioned, dreams are the purely mental experiences of the unconscious mind, which the conscious mind interprets from a literal (physical/material) perspective. Such experiences are like the realization in wakeful reality that some occurrence is all in one’s head or a product of one’s imagination and mental processes; i.e., it suggests one’s realization of the true nature of one’s experience. I welcome your continued interest.

Although a metaphysical speculation upon how life is ultimately infinite may be beyond any form of means by which investigation is commited upon, it can be definite and thus, is principle to life. Despite this, a perspective - or philosophy rather, of life can be ambigious; anyone can observe life upon any given meaning.


If you refer to a previous philosophical speculation, consciousness will inevitably be correlated; if life is infinite, you cannot possible live once and thus, there has to be another fundamental component that of which have yet to discover - if such component can be discovered. Again, despite this, you can observe consciousness upon any perspective; it can be neurological, psychological - or any other given perspective.

I agree that our brains may have evolved to interpret unconscious experiences of NDE's, and that they are a conscious interpretation of an unconscious experience.

I do agree that perhaps rational thought is pertained during a dreaming state; our interpretations of dreams are simutanously rational and abstract - an observation of the present reality, however is not abstract but is rational. My bad however, I had initially thought that it ws the rational portion of the brain that was deactivated, and not the realization center; I agree that perhaps the center of realization is temporarily deactivated.

Again, I don't believe one can recall something without experiencing it; that is to say that, memory cannot be stored without some degree of experience and thus, a certain proportion is interpretated during the time in which it's integrated, consciously - and another portion of which is implemented unconsciously - or a larger portion rather. I don't believe that our awareness is shut down during a dream and that when we're awakened, we immediately interpret the memories as they were as opposed to experiencing them and later remembering them. Alternatively, I believe that we experience our dreams during a state in which the conscious mind is reduced; consciousness is effectively reduced and biologically, a realization portion of the brain is deactivated, and is consequent to the conscious mind no longer restricting dream interpreation; naturally, if one perceives something of which is illogical physically (I.e. something they can view that doesn't exist infront of them (Not TV or such, something in reality)), their minds will immediately know that it doesn't exist and thus, it will vanish. An example of this would be a certain voice of a person who isn't there, whom you hear during a given morning; if you hear the voice, after a few short moments of thinking of the voice, it will disappear - your brain recognizes that it was a placebo effect and will commit to quick amendment. During a dreaming state however, the portion of the brain - the realization center, is deactivated and is consequent to the conscious mind being reduced and to experience an internally generated reality (An unconscious environment) without realizing that it's illogical and thus, becoming further consequent to the individual awakening - the conscious mind increasing to its initial state.

Again, I don't believe that we remember dreams; that our awareness is disabled completely and if this had occurred, it would be no different to death (If we were to define death as the removal of awareness) - and I don't believe that our unconscious is capable of predicting our thoughts; although we don't consist entirely with will, we are subject to a small portion of will; we are able to control to a certain degree - part of us is committed by our thoughts and our own only, and not our unconscious - I don't believe our unconscious is capable of predicting this portion. And thus, I believe lucid dreaming is a conscious interpretation of a metaphysical reality in the perspective of a physical reality; consequent to the reactivation of a realization portion of the brain, the conscious mind is awakened and is able to recognize the dream as to reality during the present. Despite this however, and consequently, the conscious mind will also realize that the dream is a dream and will awaken other portions of the mind and body; the individual will be subject to a present state of reality consequent to consciousness realizing the dream and thus, will experience the present reality.

I welcome your thoughts again also - this has yet, been an even more interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

If you refer to a previous philosophical speculation, consciousness will inevitably be correlated; if life is infinite, you cannot possible live once…

Whether an individual life or consciousness is infinite remains unproven; however, material existence provides strong evidence suggesting, in my opinion, that materiality had an indeterminate beginning. Still, an indeterminate beginning is not suggestive of an indeterminate or infinite existence--again, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I do agree that perhaps rational thought is pertained during a dreaming state; our interpretations of dreams are simutanously rational and abstract…I had initially thought that it ws the rational portion of the brain that was deactivated, and not the realization center; I agree that perhaps the center of realization is temporarily deactivated.

To clarify, our conscious (awake) mind interprets all experience--including dream experiences--from a literal perspective; i.e., when we awake with memories of a dreams, our conscious mind recalls those memories as literal (physical/material) depictions of experience. Our unconscious mind, through the dream state, does not experience literal or abstract reality; i.e., our unconscious mind experiences a reality comprised of mental forces, influences, and perceptions. Our dreams aren’t irrational or abstract; they are the essence of mental experience, which our conscious mind interprets from a literal perspective.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe one can recall something without experiencing it; that is to say that, memory cannot be stored without some degree of experience… I don't believe that our awareness is shut down during a dream and that when we're awakened, we immediately interpret the memories as they were as opposed to experiencing them and later remembering them.

I think I understand the source of your disagreement; unconscious, as I used the term, does not describe the deactivation or switching-off of awareness. During the dream state, our unconscious mind is fully aware but unconscious to the influence of physical/material (literal) reality. Here, unconscious refers to the mental state of awareness without the sensory experience of true physical/material reality.

Conscious, as I use the term, refers to the wakeful state of brain function wherein awareness is influenced by the sensory experience of true physical/material reality. The "conscious" environment of awareness is literal, while the unconscious environment of awareness is purely mental. Although difficult to explain in terrestrial terms, our mental environment of awareness is comprised of nebulous forces and influences rather than material substance. As we awake from dreaming, the interpretative parts of our brain associated with physical/material experience arouse and begin to define our unconscious mental experiences with the literal depictions that form our dream memories. This is like giving shape and substance to nebulous thoughts and feelings.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe that we remember dreams; that our awareness is disabled completely and if this had occurred, it would be no different to death (If we were to define death as the removal of awareness) - and I don't believe that our unconscious is capable of predicting our thoughts…

Again, just to clarify, our awareness is not disabled during the unconscious state of dream sleep. Dream sleep, from my perspective, is a misnomer; i.e., dreaming is not sleep but rather a type of wakefulness in the brain amid the sleep process.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…although we don't consist entirely with will, we are subject to a small portion of will; we are able to control to a certain degree - part of us is committed by our thoughts and our own only, and not our unconscious - I don't believe our unconscious is capable of predicting this portion. And thus, I believe lucid dreaming is a conscious interpretation of a metaphysical reality in the perspective of a physical reality…

From my perspective, too little is known or clearly understood about the nature of mind, consciousness, unconsciousness, and brain function because many of us adhere to archaic paradigms about our mental and neurological nature. Understand, much of what mainstream considers truth is rooted in ideas and perceptions that are nearly 100 years old without the slightest consideration of contemporary science. The ideas and perspective I espouse is rooted in the most recent science combining elements of the latest research in paleontology, psychology, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology. Many researchers have missed the path to a better understanding by not pursuing a cross-discipline and cross-species analysis approach to their studies.

If I may also add, a precise understanding of brain function and our unconscious mind offers a unique opportunity to form a extraordinary partnership with ourselves. Our unconscious mind is a tremendously misunderstood and underused resource for personal insight and enrichment. Our unconscious is not that bastion of repressed desires, base instincts, or illicit urges as many have come to believe; it is that part of us that is unbiased by our overwhelming conscious concerns and desires. As a full partner to our conscious mind, our unconscious cannot be shaped to any deliberate will unless that shaping serves the will of the unconscious mind. Essentially, we may live unproductive and unfulfilled lives because we are in conflict with ourselves through our lack or disinterest in truly knowing our innermost self. I welcome your further thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

If you refer to a previous philosophical speculation, consciousness will inevitably be correlated; if life is infinite, you cannot possible live once…

Whether an individual life or consciousness is infinite remains unproven; however, material existence provides strong evidence suggesting, in my opinion, that materiality had an indeterminate beginning. Still, an indeterminate beginning is not suggestive of an indeterminate or infinite existence--again, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I do agree that perhaps rational thought is pertained during a dreaming state; our interpretations of dreams are simutanously rational and abstract…I had initially thought that it ws the rational portion of the brain that was deactivated, and not the realization center; I agree that perhaps the center of realization is temporarily deactivated.

To clarify, our conscious (awake) mind interprets all experience--including dream experiences--from a literal perspective; i.e., when we awake with memories of a dreams, our conscious mind recalls those memories as literal (physical/material) depictions of experience. Our unconscious mind, through the dream state, does not experience literal or abstract reality; i.e., our unconscious mind experiences a reality comprised of mental forces, influences, and perceptions. Our dreams aren’t irrational or abstract; they are the essence of mental experience, which our conscious mind interprets from a literal perspective.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe one can recall something without experiencing it; that is to say that, memory cannot be stored without some degree of experience… I don't believe that our awareness is shut down during a dream and that when we're awakened, we immediately interpret the memories as they were as opposed to experiencing them and later remembering them.

I think I understand the source of your disagreement; unconscious, as I used the term, does not describe the deactivation or switching-off of awareness. During the dream state, our unconscious mind is fully aware but unconscious to the influence of physical/material (literal) reality. Here, unconscious refers to the mental state of awareness without the sensory perception of physical/material experience.

Conscious, as I use the term, refers to the wakeful state of brain function wherein awareness is influenced by the sensory perception of physical/material experience. The "conscious" environment of awareness is literal, while the unconscious environment of awareness is purely mental. Although difficult to explain in terrestrial terms, our mental environment of awareness is comprised of nebulous forces and influences rather than material substance. As we awake from dreaming, the interpretative parts of our brain associated with physical/material experience arouse and begin to define our unconscious mental experiences with the literal depictions that form our dream memories. This is like giving shape and substance to nebulous thoughts and feelings.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe that we remember dreams; that our awareness is disabled completely and if this had occurred, it would be no different to death (If we were to define death as the removal of awareness) - and I don't believe that our unconscious is capable of predicting our thoughts…

Again, just to clarify, our awareness is not disabled during the unconscious state of dream sleep. Dream sleep, from my perspective, is a misnomer; i.e., dreaming is not sleep but rather a type of wakefulness in the brain amid the sleep process.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…although we don't consist entirely with will, we are subject to a small portion of will; we are able to control to a certain degree - part of us is committed by our thoughts and our own only, and not our unconscious - I don't believe our unconscious is capable of predicting this portion. And thus, I believe lucid dreaming is a conscious interpretation of a metaphysical reality in the perspective of a physical reality…

From my perspective, too little is known or clearly understood about the nature of mind, consciousness, unconsciousness, and brain function because many of us adhere to archaic paradigms about our mental and neurological nature. Understand, much of what mainstream considers truth is rooted in ideas and perceptions that are nearly 100 years old without the slightest consideration of contemporary science. The ideas and perspective I espouse is rooted in the most recent science combining elements of the latest research in paleontology, psychology, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology. Many researchers have missed the path to a better understanding by not pursuing a cross-discipline and cross-species analysis approach to their studies.

If I may also add, a precise understanding of brain function and our unconscious mind offers a unique opportunity to form a extraordinary partnership with ourselves. Our unconscious mind is a tremendously misunderstood and underused resource for personal insight and enrichment. Our unconscious is not that bastion of repressed desires, base instincts, or illicit urges as many have come to believe; it is that part of us that is unbiased by our overwhelming conscious concerns and desires. As a full partner to our conscious mind, our unconscious cannot be shaped to any deliberate will unless that shaping serves the will of the unconscious mind. Essentially, we may live unproductive and unfulfilled lives because we are in conflict with ourselves through our lack or disinterest in truly knowing our innermost self. I welcome your further thoughts.

To follow up on your statement "Our unconscious is not that bastion of repressed desires, base instincts, or illicit urges..." I agree with that, and would also clear up that misconception by saying the conscious mind is filled with repressed desires, base instincts, and illicit urges. The unconscious is not repressed because it takes consciousness to repress in the first place.

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

...the conscious mind is filled with repressed desires, base instincts, and illicit urges. The unconscious is not repressed because it takes consciousness to repress in the first place.

Indeed! Repression, for my perspective of brain evolution, may be governed by activation in the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal was evolved to mediate the perception of physical/material consequence. When we dream, the prefrontal enters a state of low activation called hypofrontality. I have theorized that hypofrontality occurs during sleep because the prefrontal was evolved to become active only in the presence of true physicality. The explanation behind this exclusive activation is that physical experience was the only experience of consequence to the ancestral animals from which we inherited our brain. Dreams do not involve true physical experience; therefore, dreaming does not activate prefrontal function. Our prefrontal's assessment of consequence contributes to our retention of those experiences worthy of memory and, likely, our repression of those memories and behaviors whose consequences we fear.

Interestingly, our wakeful or conscious state of brain function is intiated by activation of neurons in a primitive region of our brainstem, the metencephalon. Through this region, all physical/material sensory data must enter to reach the brain's hierarchy. Deactivation in this region, suggested by atonia at the onset and during dream sleep, suggests that the dreaming brain's activities result from more recent developments in our brain evolution. All of this suggests how conscious brain function may be governed by neural influences less recent and, perhaps, less advanced than those that governed the unconscious functioning of the brain amid dream sleep. I welcome your further thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

If you refer to a previous philosophical speculation, consciousness will inevitably be correlated; if life is infinite, you cannot possible live once…

Whether an individual life or consciousness is infinite remains unproven; however, material existence provides strong evidence suggesting, in my opinion, that materiality had an indeterminate beginning. Still, an indeterminate beginning is not suggestive of an indeterminate or infinite existence--again, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I do agree that perhaps rational thought is pertained during a dreaming state; our interpretations of dreams are simutanously rational and abstract…I had initially thought that it ws the rational portion of the brain that was deactivated, and not the realization center; I agree that perhaps the center of realization is temporarily deactivated.

To clarify, our conscious (awake) mind interprets all experience--including dream experiences--from a literal perspective; i.e., when we awake with memories of a dreams, our conscious mind recalls those memories as literal (physical/material) depictions of experience. Our unconscious mind, through the dream state, does not experience literal or abstract reality; i.e., our unconscious mind experiences a reality comprised of mental forces, influences, and perceptions. Our dreams aren’t irrational or abstract; they are the essence of mental experience, which our conscious mind interprets from a literal perspective.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe one can recall something without experiencing it; that is to say that, memory cannot be stored without some degree of experience… I don't believe that our awareness is shut down during a dream and that when we're awakened, we immediately interpret the memories as they were as opposed to experiencing them and later remembering them.

I think I understand the source of your disagreement; unconscious, as I used the term, does not describe the deactivation or switching-off of awareness. During the dream state, our unconscious mind is fully aware but unconscious to the influence of physical/material (literal) reality. Here, unconscious refers to the mental state of awareness without the sensory perception of physical/material experience.

Conscious, as I use the term, refers to the wakeful state of brain function wherein awareness is influenced by the sensory perception of physical/material experience. The "conscious" environment of awareness is literal, while the unconscious environment of awareness is purely mental. Although difficult to explain in terrestrial terms, our mental environment of awareness is comprised of nebulous forces and influences rather than material substance. As we awake from dreaming, the interpretative parts of our brain associated with physical/material experience arouse and begin to define our unconscious mental experiences with the literal depictions that form our dream memories. This is like giving shape and substance to nebulous thoughts and feelings.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, I don't believe that we remember dreams; that our awareness is disabled completely and if this had occurred, it would be no different to death (If we were to define death as the removal of awareness) - and I don't believe that our unconscious is capable of predicting our thoughts…

Again, just to clarify, our awareness is not disabled during the unconscious state of dream sleep. Dream sleep, from my perspective, is a misnomer; i.e., dreaming is not sleep but rather a type of wakefulness in the brain amid the sleep process.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…although we don't consist entirely with will, we are subject to a small portion of will; we are able to control to a certain degree - part of us is committed by our thoughts and our own only, and not our unconscious - I don't believe our unconscious is capable of predicting this portion. And thus, I believe lucid dreaming is a conscious interpretation of a metaphysical reality in the perspective of a physical reality…

From my perspective, too little is known or clearly understood about the nature of mind, consciousness, unconsciousness, and brain function because many of us adhere to archaic paradigms about our mental and neurological nature. Understand, much of what mainstream considers truth is rooted in ideas and perceptions that are nearly 100 years old without the slightest consideration of contemporary science. The ideas and perspective I espouse is rooted in the most recent science combining elements of the latest research in paleontology, psychology, neurophysiology, and neuropsychology. Many researchers have missed the path to a better understanding by not pursuing a cross-discipline and cross-species analysis approach to their studies.

If I may also add, a precise understanding of brain function and our unconscious mind offers a unique opportunity to form a extraordinary partnership with ourselves. Our unconscious mind is a tremendously misunderstood and underused resource for personal insight and enrichment. Our unconscious is not that bastion of repressed desires, base instincts, or illicit urges as many have come to believe; it is that part of us that is unbiased by our overwhelming conscious concerns and desires. As a full partner to our conscious mind, our unconscious cannot be shaped to any deliberate will unless that shaping serves the will of the unconscious mind. Essentially, we may live unproductive and unfulfilled lives because we are in conflict with ourselves through our lack or disinterest in truly knowing our innermost self. I welcome your further thoughts.

I welcome your opinion.

My mistake - and my apologies, I misunderstood the term "unconscious"; I've always understood the unconscious as an autonomous system rather than a system that can behave on both perspectives. In one view however, I still see the unconscious as a majority from within the brain - the 90% - the largest proportion that is active, whilst the conscious - or consciousness, is the smallest - 10%. During a dream state, I see the consciousness as becoming a part of the 90% whilst the alternative, the what-was-once awareness is now an autonomous feature. To clarify, the individual switches to a dream body during their path towards a dream and thus, their physical/materialistic awareness is now autonomous - it's not longer dominant by their consciousness and is utilized by parts of the unconscious - or for what is now the unconscious; the conscious switches to become unconscious, and is now being changed. Many changes that occur, growth and the fighting of notorious issues throughout the body, will occur consequent to the switching of consciousness; consciousness will become susceptible to the mental reality as you initially described, whilst the unconscious will effectively work on the waking (conscious) perception - one can wake up as a different person consequent to this. And thank you for informing me of this.

I agree that too little is understood upon the human mind. Personally, I view the unconscious as an autonomous system; during our current state of awareness - conscious, our unconscious operates and is effectively our brain - it stores memory and performs many fundamental, additional and optional processes. It also operates essential bodily functions and all to which is not conscious throughout the brain and body. However, despite this, further evidence suggests that the unconscious operates towards conscious desires; by praying to a "God" - individuals may experience their desires acted upon by a "God"; I believe God is our unconscious and will act towards our desires in correlation to emotional intensity. Effectively, emotional intensity - or priority rather, enables for our unconscious to act upon given desires over a certain period of time. To clarify, if one is extremely desirable to achieve something, and if they become emotional of this desire, they will achieve the desire if-possible, within a short period of time following the initiation of their desire. The term "emotional intensity" enables for "emotion" to correlate to a given "intensity". If the desire is low, it may fall deep and may only be acted upon during a later time throughout the individuals life. In contrast to conscious desires, the unconscious will act upon fundamental aspects, such as organ control, breathing and other essential parts of the brain and body - these will be very deep within the unconscious, and will simultaneously by default prioritized the highest and perhaps may not be altered consciously.

However, this is just a personal speculation; I could be wrong, but I see further evidence of this during the effects of beliefs upon the human mind - or brain rather; since they don't commit to act upon such desires consciously, they must be operated unconscious - and they appear to be acted upon to a given intensity from emotion. In addition, placebo effects appear to be most significant, depending on the individuals beliefs; if an individual believes in the authoritative without any form of analytical thought, the effect will be accomplished practically immediately. Furthermore, hypnosis also appears to act upon the unconscious effectively; with the disabling of analytical thought, one can be hypnotized and can experience very specific suggestions. However, there is a lack of plausible evidence for hypnosis enabling for physiological effects; they appear to act psychologically - and also appear to develop hallugenic perception for the consciousness.

I yet again, welcome your thoughts - this has been even more interesting.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...placebo effects appear to be most significant, depending on the individuals beliefs; if an individual believes in the authoritative without any form of analytical thought, the effect will be accomplished practically immediately. Furthermore, hypnosis also appears to act upon the unconscious effectively; with the disabling of analytical thought, one can be hypnotized and can experience very specific suggestions. However, there is a lack of plausible evidence for hypnosis enabling for physiological effects; they appear to act psychologically - and also appear to develop hallugenic perception for the consciousness.

The function of the brain structures that mediate conscious awareness offers, I believe, and explanation for the effects of placebos and hypnosis. Essentially, the brain structures that mediate physical perception and behavior evolved before those associated with thought and reason. When we are awake, our thoughts, reason, and behaviors are governed by the primitive systems of our brain and central nervous system, which our animal ancestors evolved to navigate physical/material experience. These primitive systems highjack our more evolved cognitive systems as an effect of placebos and hypnosis.

Effectively, the disabling of analytical thought and the suggestibility, which hypnosis and fanatical beliefs seem to cause, is imposed by the subsystems of the brain associated with the perception and mediation of physical experience. These primitive systems could be described as operating instinctively rather than overtly cognitive. The way our conscious cognitive systems appear to interact with these primitive systems is almost akin to a human whose thoughts and behaviors are governed by the information he receives from an ape; i.e., placebos and hypnosis act upon the subsystems from which human consciousness gets its information.

These subsystems do not represent the unconscious mind as I perceive it. The unconscious mind is awareness unbridled by the concerns and perceptions arising from the imports of our brain's primitive systems. Hypnotic and fanatical behaviors can occur when these subsystems import misinformation. Through dreams, we are given an opportunity to evaluate the mental effects of the information our subsystems have imported. What our dreams most often reveal is how much and how deeply our consciousness is influenced by life experience. Your continued interest is welcome.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...placebo effects appear to be most significant, depending on the individuals beliefs; if an individual believes in the authoritative without any form of analytical thought, the effect will be accomplished practically immediately. Furthermore, hypnosis also appears to act upon the unconscious effectively; with the disabling of analytical thought, one can be hypnotized and can experience very specific suggestions. However, there is a lack of plausible evidence for hypnosis enabling for physiological effects; they appear to act psychologically - and also appear to develop hallugenic perception for the consciousness.

The function of the brain structures that mediate conscious awareness offers, I believe, and explanation for the effects of placebos and hypnosis. Essentially, the brain structures that mediate physical perception and behavior evolved before those associated with thought and reason. When we are awake, our thoughts, reason, and behaviors are governed by the primitive systems of our brain and central nervous system, which our animal ancestors evolved to navigate physical/material experience. These primitive systems highjack our more evolved cognitive systems as an effect of placebos and hypnosis.

Effectively, the disabling of analytical thought and the suggestibility, which hypnosis and fanatical beliefs seem to cause, is imposed by the subsystems of the brain associated with the perception and mediation of physical experience. These primitive systems could be described as operating instinctively rather than overtly cognitive. The way our conscious cognitive systems appear to interact with these primitive systems is almost akin to a human whose thoughts and behaviors are governed by the information he receives from an ape; i.e., placebos and hypnosis act upon the subsystems from which human consciousness gets its information.

These subsystems do not represent the unconscious mind as I perceive it. The unconscious mind is awareness unbridled by the concerns and perceptions arising from the imports of our brain's primitive systems. Hypnotic and fanatical behaviors can occur when these subsystems import misinformation. Through dreams, we are given an opportunity to evaluate the mental effects of the information our subsystems have imported. What our dreams most often reveal is how much and how deeply our consciousness is influenced by life experience. Your continued interest is welcome.

What is a hypothetical example of a subsystem importing misinformation which then causes hypnotic or fanatical behaviors ? It would seem that if this process was disected, and completely understood by the common population, a large percentage of the worlds problems would end.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...placebo effects appear to be most significant, depending on the individuals beliefs; if an individual believes in the authoritative without any form of analytical thought, the effect will be accomplished practically immediately. Furthermore, hypnosis also appears to act upon the unconscious effectively; with the disabling of analytical thought, one can be hypnotized and can experience very specific suggestions. However, there is a lack of plausible evidence for hypnosis enabling for physiological effects; they appear to act psychologically - and also appear to develop hallugenic perception for the consciousness.

The function of the brain structures that mediate conscious awareness offers, I believe, and explanation for the effects of placebos and hypnosis. Essentially, the brain structures that mediate physical perception and behavior evolved before those associated with thought and reason. When we are awake, our thoughts, reason, and behaviors are governed by the primitive systems of our brain and central nervous system, which our animal ancestors evolved to navigate physical/material experience. These primitive systems highjack our more evolved cognitive systems as an effect of placebos and hypnosis.

Effectively, the disabling of analytical thought and the suggestibility, which hypnosis and fanatical beliefs seem to cause, is imposed by the subsystems of the brain associated with the perception and mediation of physical experience. These primitive systems could be described as operating instinctively rather than overtly cognitive. The way our conscious cognitive systems appear to interact with these primitive systems is almost akin to a human whose thoughts and behaviors are governed by the information he receives from an ape; i.e., placebos and hypnosis act upon the subsystems from which human consciousness gets its information.

These subsystems do not represent the unconscious mind as I perceive it. The unconscious mind is awareness unbridled by the concerns and perceptions arising from the imports of our brain's primitive systems. Hypnotic and fanatical behaviors can occur when these subsystems import misinformation. Through dreams, we are given an opportunity to evaluate the mental effects of the information our subsystems have imported. What our dreams most often reveal is how much and how deeply our consciousness is influenced by life experience. Your continued interest is welcome.

Very interesting, and thank you yet again.

However, I do believe there is an unconscious that can operate autonomous - or subconscious if you will (As I had initially described for a lack of definition from within Psychology); a system from which processes and other various interactions throughout the brain and body occur subjective (below) individual consciousness. Although we do fall "unconscious" during a dream, and thus, we experience the subliminal, or data that had fell to a range subject to the conscious mind - or consciousness, we still lack the integrity from within control as to that of how placebo's and hypnosis effect us; although we're deep within our minds, we still lack the access integrity to that of how a placebo can effect us; we couldn't stop our heart from within our dreams or such - the process is unconscious - or subconscious, and can be effected by intensive or subjective belief, but not by individual consciousness.

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

What is a hypothetical example of a subsystem importing misinformation which then causes hypnotic or fanatical behaviors ?

Hypnotic suggestion is a prime example of the sort of misinformation that leads to aberrant behaviors. Hypnosis imports instructions into the response centers of the brain via the primitive physical/material perception systems of our central nervous system. When we are conscious, it is our primitve sensory connection to physical experience and reality that activates and mediates our wakeful thoughts and behaviors. Physical experience switches-on the associative data network of the conscious brain, which allows us to access the memories and abilities we use to navigate physical reality. Hypnosis implants faulty data in this network through a governing system that evolved before the reasoning centers of brain.

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

It would seem that if this process was disected, and completely understood by the common population, a large percentage of the worlds problems would end.

That may be an over simplification; however, much of what we may perceive as misinformation could be derived through an assessment of our dream content. Dreaming injects our awareness into the unconscious cognitive environment of the mind. Within this environment, every experience could be prefixed as a mental influence. When we evaluate dream imagery as mental influence, then imagery of a house, food, and police, for example, describes a mental structure, mental food, and mental police. From this mental perspective of dream content, we open a window onto the nature of what may be truly unsettling to our mental peace. Essentially, dreaming is an intrusion on the mental peace of the sleep process. The images and experiences in our dreams describe our perception of what may be intruding on our peace of mind. I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

What is a hypothetical example of a subsystem importing misinformation which then causes hypnotic or fanatical behaviors ?

Hypnotic suggestion is a prime example of the sort of misinformation that leads to aberrant behaviors. Hypnosis imports instructions into the response centers of the brain via the primitive physical/material perception systems of our central nervous system. When we are conscious, it is our primitve sensory connection to physical experience and reality that activates and mediates our wakeful thoughts and behaviors. Physical experience switches-on the associative data network of the conscious brain, which allows us to access the memories and abilities we use to navigate physical reality. Hypnosis implants faulty data in this network through a governing system that evolved before the reasoning centers of brain.

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

It would seem that if this process was disected, and completely understood by the common population, a large percentage of the worlds problems would end.

That may be an over simplification; however, much of what we may perceive as misinformation could be derived through an assessment of our dream content. Dreaming injects our awareness into the unconscious cognitive environment of the mind. Within this environment, every experience could be prefixed as a mental influence. When we evaluate dream imagery as mental influence, then imagery of a house, food, and police, for example, describes a mental structure, mental food, and mental police. From this mental perspective of dream content, we open a window onto the nature of what may be truly unsettling to our mental peace. Essentially, dreaming is an intrusion on the mental peace of the sleep process. The images and experiences in our dreams describe our perception of what may be intruding on our peace of mind. I welcome your thoughts.

What I am gathering from all this, and from a book im reading currently is that the unconscious thinks one thing about the world around it, and the consciousness thinks something totally different. The two of them are conflicting entities that are only brought together by virtue of being in the same head.

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

What I am gathering from all this, and from a book im reading currently is that the unconscious thinks one thing about the world around it, and the consciousness thinks something totally different. The two of them are conflicting entities that are only brought together by virtue of being in the same head.

My perspective of consciousness arose from my study of how the human brain may have evolved to dream. I realized very quickly that the various neural components of dreaming arose at different levels of brain structure ranging from recent to primitive. When I began to look at how the activity of these structures change from conscious arousal to dreaming, I found that conscious arousal engages the entire structure of our central nervous system (CNS) while the dreaming brain did not. When I took a closer look at this disparity, I found that the dreaming brain did not engage the earliest evolutionary regions of our CNS.

This was a profound revelation to me because it suggested that the activities of the conscious brain is more connected to its primitive systems and functions than its unconscious activities amid dream sleep. In understanding what this distinction meant, a breakthrough came when I uncovered why atonic sleep processes in the lower brainstem resulted in dreaming and diminished activation in the prefrontal cortex. That additional revelation explains memory, types of schizophrenia, dreaming, cognition, consciousness, and a host of other aspects and conditions of brain function.

Most contemporary psychologists consider dreaming to be an operation of the unconscious mind. In my view, no true definition of the unconscious mind exists without an understanding of the mind as provided by brain evolution. Earlier on in this discussion line, I provided a definition of mind, consciousness, and unconsciousness as suggested by the brain’s evolution. These definitions are not those accepted by many of my contemporaries because they have not studied the brain as I have. When we read what some have written about the nature of consciousness, we find that their ideas are rooted in surface manifestations of brain function rather than an intimate knowledge of the core from which these manifestations arise.

The perspective of the unconscious you have read about is most likely the summations of the author's perspective based on many years of behavioral study and observations. However, years of behavioral studies and observations do not reveal the kind of information that invasive brain study and brain injury has shown. My study of the brain suggests that we have but one consciousness that is diluted by alterations in brain function. During the conscious state of brain function, the primitive systems of the brain dilute consciousness with the sensory data these primitive systems import. This is not true of the unconscious state of the brain suggested by dream sleep.

If the operations of the unconscious mind is suggested by the dream state of brain function, then the dream consciousness this state creates is not diluted by the import of true physical experience. The part of our CNS that imports physical expeience into brain structure decreases in activation amid dream sleep, which results in the partial suppression of our sensitivity to tactile and aural stimuli. This suggests that the differences in the thought processes between the conscious and unconscious mind may rest in how each filters experience; i.e., the conscious mind tends to thinks differently because it is subject to the effects of physical reality.

The conscious behaviors that some perceive as a direct result of influences from the unconscious are actually effects of how the mind functions during its conscious state of brain function. The primitive systems of the brain are instinctual and, therefore, reactive in behavioral effects; i.e., these non-reasoning systems are the source of irrational behaviors. One may attribute the unconscious maladies we frequently experience and exhibit as the reactions or manifestations arising from the influence of the primitive systems that mediate our conscious brain’s perspective.

During the wakeful state of brain function, its primitive system's imports frequently overwhelm the brain’s thought and reasoning centers. During the brain’s respite, through dream sleep, from the import of physical reality , its thought and reasoning centers are free to engage experiences that transcend physical reality. The very nature of thought and reason is transcendent of physical experience and reality. Therefore, the unconscious mind may not have the same objectives as a mind subject to the constraints and consequences of physical reality. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

What I am gathering from all this, and from a book im reading currently is that the unconscious thinks one thing about the world around it, and the consciousness thinks something totally different. The two of them are conflicting entities that are only brought together by virtue of being in the same head.

My perspective of consciousness arose from my study of how the human brain may have evolved to dream. I realized very quickly that the various neural components of dreaming arose at different levels of brain structure ranging from recent to primitive. When I began to look at how the activity of these structures change from conscious arousal to dreaming, I found that conscious arousal engages the entire structure of our central nervous system (CNS) while the dreaming brain did not. When I took a closer look at this disparity, I found that the dreaming brain did not engage the earliest evolutionary regions of our CNS.

This was a profound revelation to me because it suggested that the activities of the conscious brain is more connected to its primitive systems and functions than its unconscious activities amid dream sleep. In understanding what this distinction meant, a breakthrough came when I uncovered why atonic sleep processes in the lower brainstem resulted in dreaming and diminished activation in the prefrontal cortex. That additional revelation explains memory, types of schizophrenia, dreaming, cognition, consciousness, and a host of other aspects and conditions of brain function.

Most contemporary psychologists consider dreaming to be an operation of the unconscious mind. In my view, no true definition of the unconscious mind exists without an understanding of the mind as provided by brain evolution. Earlier on in this discussion line, I provided a definition of mind, consciousness, and unconsciousness as suggested by the brain’s evolution. These definitions are not those accepted by many of my contemporaries because they have not studied the brain as I have. When we read what some have written about the nature of consciousness, we find that their ideas are rooted in surface manifestations of brain function rather than an intimate knowledge of the core from which these manifestations arise.

The perspective of the unconscious you have read about is most likely the summations of the author's perspective based on many years of behavioral study and observations. However, years of behavioral studies and observations do not reveal the kind of information that invasive brain study and brain injury has shown. My study of the brain suggests that we have but one consciousness that is diluted by alterations in brain function. During the conscious state of brain function, the primitive systems of the brain dilute consciousness with the sensory data these primitive systems import. This is not true of the unconscious state of the brain suggested by dream sleep.

If the operations of the unconscious mind is suggested by the dream state of brain function, then the dream consciousness this state creates is not diluted by the import of true physical experience. The part of our CNS that imports physical expeience into brain structure decreases in activation amid dream sleep, which results in the partial suppression of our sensitivity to tactile and aural stimuli. This suggests that the differences in the thought processes between the conscious and unconscious mind may rest in how each filters experience; i.e., the conscious mind tends to thinks differently because it is subject to the effects of physical reality.

The conscious behaviors that some perceive as a direct result of influences from the unconscious are actually effects of how the mind functions during its conscious state of brain function. The primitive systems of the brain are instinctual and, therefore, reactive in behavioral effects; i.e., these non-reasoning systems are the source of irrational behaviors. One may attribute the unconscious maladies we frequently experience and exhibit as the reactions or manifestations arising from the influence of the primitive systems that mediate our conscious brain’s perspective.

During the wakeful state of brain function, its primitive system's imports frequently overwhelm the brain’s thought and reasoning centers. During the brain’s respite from the import of physical reality through dream sleep, its thought and reasoning centers are free to engage experiences that transcend physical reality. The very nature of thought and reason is transcendent of physical experience and reality. Therefore, the unconscious mind may not have the same objectives as a mind subject to the constraints and consequences of physical reality. I welcome your continued interest.

This may be off topic, or foolish but when someone who has paranoid schizophrenia see's illusions, is it the primative brain regions producing these illusions?

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

...when someone who has paranoid schizophrenia see's illusions, is it the primative brain regions producing these illusions?

This is a very interesting question! From my study, the hallucinatory states of schizophrenia occur when the conscious brain begins to interpret nebulous mental experiences as literal depictions. Rather than engaging in some form of imagination, the schizophrenic brain actually appears to be engaging in an interpretive process; i.e., schizophrenic hallucination is the literal depiction of those unconscious influences that seep into the purview of the conscious brain. For example, having a schizophrenic vision of ants crawling over one's legs interprets the unconscious perception of what the sufferer believes is happening to his sanity. In essence, this example suggests that the schizophrenic literally perceives the mental experience of lost sanity like the gnawing of ants all over his legs. These hallucinations are a self-diagnosis of the unconscious influences that may be contributing to the mental instability of the schizophrenic. Through such episodes, the unconscious seems to be reaching-out to its conscious mind for understanding, which the conscious mind's literal nature misinterprets as real experience--in my opinion.

There is recent evidence that insomnia may contribute significantly to schizophrenia: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ng-us-mad.html

Barring brain abnormality, paranoia begins as an effect of conscious experience, which the brain's primitive systems import. Further still, these very same systems export our behaviors to the world. The middleman in all of this is our thought and reasoning center. It may be that schizophrenic behaviors could be partially attributed to the way our primitive brain systems import and export the directives to and from our thought and reasoning centers. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

...when someone who has paranoid schizophrenia see's illusions, is it the primative brain regions producing these illusions?

This is a very interesting question! From my study, the hallucinatory states of schizophrenia occur when the conscious brain begins to interpret nebulous mental experiences as literal depictions. Rather than engaging in some form of imagination, the schizophrenic brain actually appears to be engaging in an interpretive process; i.e., schizophrenic hallucination is the literal depiction of those unconscious influences that seep into the purview of the conscious brain. For example, having a schizophrenic vision of ants crawling over one's legs interprets the unconscious perception of what the sufferer believes is happening to his sanity. In essence, this example suggests that the schizophrenic literally perceives the mental experience of lost sanity like the gnawing of ants all over his legs. These hallucinations are a self-diagnosis of the unconscious influences that may be contributing to the mental instability of the schizophrenic. Through such episodes, the unconscious seems to be reaching-out to its conscious mind for understanding, which the conscious mind's literal nature misinterprets as real experience--in my opinion.

There is recent evidence that insomnia may contribute significantly to schizophrenia: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ng-us-mad.html

Barring brain abnormality, paranoia begins as an effect of conscious experience, which the brain's primitive systems import. Further still, these very same systems export our behaviors to the world. The middleman in all of this is our thought and reasoning center. It may be that schizophrenic behaviors could be partially attributed to the way our primitive brain systems import and export the directives to and from our thought and reasoning centers. I welcome your continued interest.

That article on sleep and its probable link to psychiatric disorders, and definite link to impaired brain function was very re-inforcing to my already present value I hold on sleep. When I hear people say "Sleep is the cousin of death" or "I'll sleep when Im dead" I just think "You will be dead with that kind of attitude fool!". Thanks for the article doc.

When I hear people say "Sleep is the cousin of death" or "I'll sleep when Im dead" I just think "You will be dead with that kind of attitude fool!". Thanks for the article doc.

Your most welcome.

Hello All,

Here's an interesting article on the effecacy of placebos on the unconscious systems of the body:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...re-in-the-mind

Again, this suggests how inputs that address the primitive systems of the brain affect the primitive physical systems of the body.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hello All,

Here's an interesting article on the effecacy of placebos on the unconscious systems of the body:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...re-in-the-mind

Again, this suggests how inputs that address the primitive systems of the brain affect the primitive physical systems of the body.

Its amazing the power perception has on the biological processes of the body

Hello All,

In previous posts, I briefly suggested how my cross-descipline approach to studying the nature of mind, consciousness, and unconsciousness has enhanced my perspective. In pursuit of a more precise idea of what consciousness may be, I've explored various paleontological, neurological, and psychological research. Now, I have included physics and astronomy to my study.

Physics tells us that the speed of light travels at about 186,000 miles per second. By this measure, light from our sun requires 8 minutes to reach our blue marble. What this means, as all physicists understand, is that the sun we see in our morning sky from moment to moment is as it was 8 minutes ago; i.e., to see the sun at any moment during the day is to see the sun as it was in the past--albeit 8 minutes ago.

It occurred to me, while watching a program on time, that all conscious experience is predicated on our perception of the past. For example, the light from our televisions or the sound from our radios convey sensory information from the past, which our brain interprets as contemporaneous experience. We know this sensory information comes from the past because of the time required for light and sound to reach our sensory receptors. In essence, conscious experience is the perception and interpretation of sensory influences from the immediate past.

In considering this idea of influences upon consciousness from the immediate past, I believe this is not the nature of the unconscious experience suggested by dreaming. From my study, dreaming is a spontaneous cognitive occurrence arises from a vestigial neural process. During dream sleep, the brain is processing internal information that does not arrive contemporaneously in the brain from external sensory sources. This suggests that the brain, while dreaming, engages its most prescient cognitive functions. Unlike conscious experience, what we see and hear in a dream could suggest something we could consider as concurrent or imminent rather than as past. If the brain is capable of such function, this provides a possible explanation for precognition and deja vu experiences. Through such experiences, the brain proves its ability to assess and interpret the nature of future experience from its perception and assessment of past experience--just a preliminary thought.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hello All,

In previous posts, I briefly suggested how my cross-descipline approach to studying the nature of mind, consciousness, and unconsciousness has enhanced my perspective. In pursuit of a more precise idea of what consciousness may be, I've explored various paleontological, neurological, and psychological research. Now, I have included physics and astronomy to my study.

Physics tells us that the speed of light travels at about 186,000 miles per second. By this measure, light from our sun requires 8 minutes to reach our blue marble. What this means, as all physicists understand, is that the sun we see in our morning sky from moment to moment is as it [i]was/i] 8 minutes ago; i.e., to see the sun at any moment during the day is to see the sun as it was in the past--albeit 8 minutes ago.

It occurred to me, while watching a program on time, that all conscious experience is predicated on our perception of the past. For example, the light from our televisions or the sound from our radios convey sensory information from the past, which our brain interprets as contemporaneous experience. We know this sensory information comes from the past because of the time required for light and sound to reach our sensory receptors. In essence, conscious experience is the perception and interpretation of sensory influences from the immediate past.

In considering this idea of influences upon consciousness from the immediate past, I believe this is not the nature of the unconscious experience suggested by dreaming. From my study, dreaming is a spontaneous cognitive occurrence arises from a vestigial neural process. During dream sleep, the brain is processing internal information that does not arrive contemporaneously in the brain from external sensory sources. This suggests that the brain, while dreaming, engages its most prescient cognitive functions. Unlike conscious experience, what we see and hear in a dream could suggest something we could consider as concurrent or imminent rather than as past. If the brain is capable of such function, this provides a possible explanation for precognition and deja vu experiences. Through such experiences, the brain proves its ability to assess and interpret the nature of future experience from its perception and assessment of past experience--just a preliminary thought.

Great read. When we dream what we are seeing is taking exactly no time to reach our sensory system is that what your saying ?

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

When we dream what we are seeing is taking exactly no time to reach our sensory system is that what your saying ?

Precisely! Actually, dreaming excludes our sensory systems. Every sensory experience within the dreams we recall upon waking is how our conscious mind interprets or depicts some other influence that was resonant in the neural structure of the brain during the REM phase of sleep. Although our conscious memory of a dream is the perception of a past experience, we experience the present and can, theoretically, perceive (or conceive) the future during dream sleep--in my opinion.

It is a fascinating idea to consider that whereever we look and whatever we hear while awake, we are seeing and hearing the past. It occurs to me that Einstein's theories seem to apply to dream content whenever we awake from a short dream to find more time expired than we perceived as having passed.--it's like the effect wherein surrounding time passes more rapidly than it does for those traveling near light speed.

Here is a direct quote from the book I am currently reading called "Synaptic Self" by Joseph LeDoux. "Researchers like Jonathan Winson, Gyorgy Buzaski, Bruce McNaughton, and Matt Wilson believe memory consolidation occurs during sleep, and specifically that it is during sleep that the slow interleaving of information into cortical networks takes place. Recent studies support this notion. For example, Wilson and McNaughton recorded the activity of neurons in the rat hippocampus. Using technically sophisticated procedures, they were able to identify precise patterns of cell activity in the hippocampus as rats explored a novel environment. Subsequently, when the rats went to sleep, the neural patterns seemed to be repeated in the hippocampus, as if the rats were dreaming about the places they had explored. This is an impressive finding. Although it has not yet been demonstrated that the hippocampal playback during sleep is actually read and used by the cortex, the existing data are consistent with the possibility."

I've read similar studies wherein the brain activation patterns of rats in REM mirrored the conscious activation patterns they experienced when introduced to a new maze environment. Researchers interpreted these neural patterns as evidence of how REM involves the replaying of recent experiences as a way to commit these experiences to memory. They were wrong--in my opinion.

These researchers assume that activations in the hippocampus during REM infers a link to memory particularly when such activations appear to be similar to the pattern of activation arising from recently learned tasks. However, hippocampal activation occurs whenever the brain engages a cognitive function as it does during REM sleep. There is nothing about this activation which suggests that the brain does anything more than it does during conscious arousal. Further still, similar activation patterns in REM to conscious activations patterns isn't necessarily evidence of some mental re-creation of wakeful experience. Such evidence would suggests that all dreams are about reliving some conscious experience, which we empirically know they are not. Dreaming does not always produce lasting memories of them and they most often do not contain direct imagery of our conscious experiences. If their purpose is to consolidate memory, why do our memories of dreaming often fail and why don't their imagery consistently repeat our wakeful experience?

Our dreams are not about memory and they do not promote memory because they are not concurrent with true physical/material experience. Memory was evolved for the physical wellbeing of ancestral animals and dreams do not involve true physicality. The error I think most, if not all, researchers have made and continue to make is to not consider how the brain evolved to dream. Our dreams are difficult to remember because of the way our brain evolved. If dreaming was about memory, shouldn't we consistently have more potent memories of them after we awake? Shouldn't a memory experience like dreaming promote memory of that experience?

Rather than performing some memory function, when we dream we are accessing an alternate state of awareness or consciousness. It appears to be a state unbiased and unbound by our primitive physical/material nature. Within this state, we have the ability to perceive, assess, and understand ourselves and our world from a most unique and extraordinary perspective. This could explain why some of humanities greatest inspirations came as if from a dream. However, most of us will continue to ignore our dreams because their odd imagery makes them seem inaccessible and irrelevant. For years, Egyptologist felt similarly about hieroglyphs until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

Several years ago, I wrote a book about the language of dreams in which I referred to them as “hieroglyphs in motion.” I’ve since learned that they are much more than I presumed. In one sense, dreams are a dialogue we have with ourselves in a language that is both simple and multilayered; in another, they are a door to a realm of quantum experience and understanding that defies imagination. Although I have been both frustrated and enlightened by them over the years, I have only recently began to think I truly understand them. I welcome your thoughts.

I will always remain scientific, and in my studies of consciousness (which is very vast), it seems that the unconscious is but a ground state of awareness, which is very little said in the ''aware'' side of things. However, due to Lucid Dream Phenomena, a real phenomena might i add, it seems that we can be aware to a certain degree even when unconscious, thus, unconsciousness is but a sub-level of total of near-total consciousness.

1. By "Lucid Dream Phenomena" do you mean REM sleep?

2. I would expect someone with vast experience in the study of human consciousness (such as you claim) to be able to provide a more in-depth description of his studies.

3.

it seems that we can be aware to a certain degree even when unconscious

Of course. Even that hack Freud sensed that much without the use of fMRI's. I'm not bashing you, my friend. Sorry if it comes off that way. I am just a bit put off by your claims. Please take no offense. I appreciate that you're here to learn, just like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Manynames

…in my studies of consciousness (which is very vast), it seems that the unconscious is but a ground state of awareness, which is very little said in the ''aware'' side of things. However, due to Lucid Dream Phenomena, a real phenomena might i add, it seems that we can be aware to a certain degree even when unconscious, thus, unconsciousness is but a sub-level of total of near-total consciousness.

I would question any vast scientific knowledge of consciousness that did not include a comprehensive study of the brain and brain function. Therefore, as a studier of consciousness, you must most assuredly have some knowledge of the relationship between brain function and consciousness. Empirically--from the only truly testable models of consciousness--consciousness cannot exist without a neurological structure as its progenitor.

If you accept the model of consciousness suggested by that which the human brain produces, then you must be aware that our brain appears to produce just two distinct states of consciousness: Conscious and unconscious. Both states appear to be maintained by distinctly different brainstem activations. The greatest distinction between these states of consciousness is suggested by the relative deactivation in the metencephelic region of the brainstem at and during the onset of the REM phase of sleep. If you accept REM (dream sleep) as evidence of unconscious activation in the brain, then you must also accept the distinction of the unconscious mind suggested by deactivation in the metencephalon during dream sleep.

Consciousness is a construct of brain function: our brain constructs one type of consciousness when we are awake and another type when we dream. Although we may be aware that our experiences are a dream during the lucid state of dreaming sleep, lucid dreaming is not distinct from the type of consciousness our brain constructs whenever we dream; i.e., lucid dreaming is an unconscious state of awareness of little distinction from normal dream sleep--in my opinion. I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

1. By "Lucid Dream Phenomena" do you mean REM sleep?

2. I would expect someone with vast experience in the study of human consciousness (such as you claim) to be able to provide a more in-depth description of his studies.

3.

it seems that we can be aware to a certain degree even when unconscious

Of course. Even that hack Freud sensed that much without the use of fMRI's. I'm not bashing you, my friend. Sorry if it comes off that way. I am just a bit put off by your claims. Please take no offense. I appreciate that you're here to learn, just like the rest of us.

I see no dispute between 1) and 3), but if you want me to give a more indepth investigation of 2) you need to simply ask. I know, funnily enough, what your answer will be.

Lol..if you knew what my answer would be you wouldn't have wasted both of our time and you would have answered my question in your last post...

Anyway, I would be glad to for you to "give an in depth investigation of 2)", as you say.

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Lol..if you knew what my answer would be you wouldn't have wasted both of our time and you would have answered my question in your last post...

Anyway, I would be glad to for you to "give an in depth investigation of 2)", as you say.

Fine, just give me a bit of time to collect resources for this interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by gottspieler

Lol..if you knew what my answer would be you wouldn't have wasted both of our time and you would have answered my question in your last post...

Anyway, I would be glad to for you to "give an in depth investigation of 2)", as you say.

Fine, just give me a bit of time to collect resources for this interesting discussion.

Right, for a more in-depth description:

If i take the reader(s) of this post to Doctor Wolfs Book ''Mind into Matter,'' his extensive research into the unconscious has led physics into consdiering the following facts, but first, here are page references who might have his book handy:

pages:3,10,13,16,20,25,62,68,69,70,71,79-82,87,112,-114,128,132-134,152,162.

Continuing now, Doctor wolf brings to our attentions the following facts:

1) Benjamin Libets Experiments into the conscious state and refferral state shows us, and conlcuding with Doctor Wolf (who is a close friend of Libet) explains that the bodily reality is supposed to exist from the corporeal self of matter and energy. He makes it clear that such sensations are best described from a parallel universe interpretation (1). He works it out that we need parallel universes to issue a truth behind why we have a reality we objectively see ''out there.''

2) He brings our attention to a Nobel Prize Winning scientist Dr. George von Bekesy, who found that parallel worlds can answer to how we would not be able to manifest or change the world we experience because we would only have [one] fixed unit of memory, which seems to be something we ''compare things to.''

3) Libet experimented on the electrical stimuli of subjects whilst deprived of visual sense.

4) This visul sense that ties to the sensation of events actually happen have been experimented on veterans who had lost their limbs. It seems that ''ghostly limb sensation'' is a widely known phenom. Dr Bekesy's results found that whilst a subject is deprived of a visual sense, they still felt sensations in spaces where no parts of their bodies remained:

5) These vibrations of sensual activity showed in physics and medical science that the brain ventures competative scripts in the brain of the observer, and whereas that said subject experiences a ''recreated'' experience of subjective influences from the referral of events ''out there.''

6) In Libets series of remarkable events of tests, Doctor Wolf shows, that sensory phenomena is also projected backwards through time!!!! (2)

(1) - if anyone wants me to decode the essence and nature of parallel universes, then i will in another post.

(2) - Libet E W Wright, B Feinstein and Dennis Pearl, ''Subjective Referral of the Timing of Conscious Sensory Experience; A functional role for the somatosensory specific projection system in man,'' Brain 102, part 1 (March 1979). Doctor Wolf also has his own published work on this subject, ''The timing of consciousness,'' see his website for details.

(Now) I ask

That this work is read over first before i continue any further.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Benjamin Libets provides phanthom limb syndrome as evidence of our simultaneous existence in some parallel universe. His idea, as I understand, is that our brain's detection of a complete limb after amputation is suggestive of our brain's perception of a alternate state of being in a non-corporeal parallel universe. If this is true, what was his findings for test subjects born without limbs; i.e., did Libets find that they also experienced the perception of having whole limbs where none were present? If Mr. Libets experiments were valid, he should have uncovered similar perceptions of alternate realities among people born without whole limbs.

As evidence of what consciousness maybe, I do not think Mr. Libets experiments offers a particularly compelling example. You may want to, perhaps, consider a discussion of how you define consciousness based on the science you have studied. I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

If I understand correctly, Mr. Benjamin Libets provides fathom limb syndrome as evidence of our simultaneous existence in some parallel universe. His idea, as I understand, is that our brain's detection of a complete limb after amputation is suggestive of our brain's perception of a alternate state of being in a non-corporeal parallel universe. If this is true, what was his findings for test subjects born without limbs; i.e., did Libets find that they also experienced the perception of having whole limbs where none were present? If Mr. Libets experiments were valid, he should have uncovered similar perceptions of alternate realities among people born without whole limbs.

As evidence of what consciousness maybe, I do not think Mr. Libets experiments offers a particularly compelling example. You may want to, perhaps, consider a discussion of how you define consciousness based on the science you have studied. I welcome your thoughts.

I think ity depends on a more accurate interpretation of parallel universe theory. For instance, in this theory, it is actually quite different to be born without limbs and thus later loosing them in some accident. The reason why is that events which happen in this universe (such as the loss of limbs) are actually reflected on universes where you haven't lost your limbs. If you are born in this universe without limbs, then equally there may be many universes where you have been born absolutely fine.

But whilst i may not be correct, it seems Libets experiements shows that it really is quite important to understand this subjective phenomena, whether we adopt parallel universe theory or not. I certainly can't think what else it may be other than that, which is a crying shame for me, since i detest parallel univesre theory.

Originally Posted by Manynames

I will always remain scientific,

I do admire a sense of humour.

Originally Posted by Manynames

and in my studies of consciousness (which is very vast),

Could you define vast. I was under the impression that you were young, perhaps in your twenties. I have been studying a handful of areas of science for several decades and my studies in none of these could be described as vast. Definitely not very vast, and not even slightly vast.

Perhaps you could list the twenty text books and fifty research papers you have found most informative. That could prove to be a useful reading list for those of us who lack your vast experinece in this area.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

I will always remain scientific,

I do admire a sense of humour.

Originally Posted by Manynames

and in my studies of consciousness (which is very vast),

Could you define vast. I was under the impression that you were young, perhaps in your twenties. I have been studying a handful of areas of science for several decades and my studies in none of these could be described as vast. Definitely not very vast, and not even slightly vast.

Perhaps you could list the twenty text books and fifty research papers you have found most informative. That could prove to be a useful reading list for those of us who lack your vast experinece in this area.

I do admire a sense of humour.

Not as blinding as your ego mind you.

Could you define vast. I was under the impression that you were young, perhaps in your twenties. I have been studying a handful of areas of science for several decades and my studies in none of these could be described as vast. Definitely not very vast, and not even slightly vast.

Perhaps you could list the twenty text books and fifty research papers you have found most informative. That could prove to be a useful reading list for those of us who lack your vast experinece in this area.

Listen to me.

Ever since my grandfather died several years back, he left me in his will a book. From this simple text, it sent my imagination wild on the possibilities that describe a union between that of the conscious and unconscious mind with that of physics in general. Do you know this book was by Doctor Fred Alan Wolf? Since then i have completed reading all 11 or so books he has published on consciousness, and even read every single one of his scientific papers. In doing so, was nothing but frutful. I have investigated some of the most prominent theories that help explain consciousness, and when i say ''vast'' you want a definition? Perhaps this definition will do.

And no, i will not list twenty text books and fifty research papers. I don't know what you think i am but i don't have that kind of time. I get to drop in here frequently but it doesn't mean i have a great deal of time...

...talking of which, i need to go to the police station and identify someone in a parade. I am sure you will understand that when i said ''vast'' i meant i would probably have a good grasp on conscious studies, which indeed i have.

Bye for now.

I do admire a sense of humour.

Not as blinding as your ego mind you.

Not a very good comeback. I think you got served, my friend. A LA MODE...lol...

Do you know this book was by Doctor Fred Alan Wolf? Since then i have completed reading all 11 or so books he has published on consciousness, and even read every single one of his scientific papers. In doing so, was nothing but frutful. I have investigated some of the most prominent theories that help explain consciousness, and when i say ''vast'' you want a definition? Perhaps this definition will do.

No offense to you, but the guy is a quantum physicist who spews abstract ideas which are untestable to please scientists and the highly religious as well. If quantum physics is able to uncover the mysteries of consciousness, it has not yet been proven.

And no, i will not list twenty text books and fifty research papers. I don't know what you think i am but i don't have that kind of time. I get to drop in here frequently but it doesn't mean i have a great deal of time...

Ok. Then list 5 books and 5 research papers.

...talking of which, i need to go to the police station and identify someone in a parade.

LMAO

Originally Posted by gottspieler

I do admire a sense of humour.

Not as blinding as your ego mind you.

Not a very good comeback. I think you got served, my friend. A LA MODE...lol...

Do you know this book was by Doctor Fred Alan Wolf? Since then i have completed reading all 11 or so books he has published on consciousness, and even read every single one of his scientific papers. In doing so, was nothing but frutful. I have investigated some of the most prominent theories that help explain consciousness, and when i say ''vast'' you want a definition? Perhaps this definition will do.

No offense to you, but the guy is a quantum physicist who spews abstract ideas which are untestable to please scientists and the highly religious as well. If quantum physics is able to uncover the mysteries of consciousness, it has not yet been proven.

And no, i will not list twenty text books and fifty research papers. I don't know what you think i am but i don't have that kind of time. I get to drop in here frequently but it doesn't mean i have a great deal of time...

Ok. Then list 5 books and 5 research papers.

...talking of which, i need to go to the police station and identify someone in a parade.

LMAO

Well, give me some time to pick some i feel are the best... But be warned, Fred Alan Wolf has never been scientifically discredited. He is however known not to make very good comparrison between the metaphysical and scientific, but i adore him for his works, especially when trying to unite a ''universal interest'' for the world readers of his work at large.

but 5 books and 5 published papers... easy enough. Just give me time to pick the one's i feel are important to the investigation of the psyche. And please refrain from ebing immature. It's hardly a joke that i had to go to an ID parade today, now is it?

Originally Posted by Manynames

but 5 books and 5 published papers... easy enough. Just give me time to pick the one's i feel are important to the investigation of the psyche.

That is not what was asked for. I want to see some evidence that your claim to vast amounts of study is something more than self deluding hyperbole. It shouldn't take you any time at all to fullfill this request.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Manynames

but 5 books and 5 published papers... easy enough. Just give me time to pick the one's i feel are important to the investigation of the psyche.

That is not what was asked for. I want to see some evidence that your claim to vast amounts of study is something more than self deluding hyperbole. It shouldn't take you any time at all to fullfill this request.

Oh i know, and i won't full-fill your desired question either. I will take the lower limit of 5 book and 5 published papers if need be, but not twenty. I have years of dowloaded articles and whatnot, and thus yes it would take me a while, whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Manynames

I think ity depends on a more accurate interpretation of parallel universe theory. For instance, in this theory, it is actually quite different to be born without limbs and thus later loosing them in some accident. The reason why is that events which happen in this universe (such as the loss of limbs) are actually reflected on universes where you haven't lost your limbs. If you are born in this universe without limbs, then equally there may be many universes where you have been born absolutely fine.

If I now understand correctly, Libets also suggests that having full limbs in other parallel universes compensates for the absence of phantom limb syndrome symptoms in individuals born without limbs in this universe; i.e., you can’t miss what you already have--albeit may exist in an alternate universe. Still, if Libets’ idea was valid, congenital amputates should have some sense of full limbs because the brain, as Libets’ idea seems to suggest, is perceptive of the body’s full dimension in alternate universes on some theoretical level.

If our goal is to engage in a productive exchange of perspectives, I would rather we began with your idea of what consciousness may be, based on your studies, rather than a recital of the works you’ve read. Have you developed you own ideas or are your thoughts merely echoes of another’s voice? I welcome your perspective.

Manynames, could we please restrict the discussion to psychology and consciousness that has some credible research behind it please. That means no parallel universes or fancyful phantom limb hypothesis please. And also no Dr Wolf. He is physicist.

Me with my moderator's trident in hand.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Manynames, could we please restrict the discussion to psychology and consciousness that has some credible research behind it please. That means no parallel universes or fancyful phantom limb hypothesis please. And also no Dr Wolf. He is physicist.

Me with my moderator's trident in hand.

I do apologize. I will move away from the subject then.

Just as a final note; We do have a New Hypothesis and ideas section. You are free to discuss this stuff over there.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Just as a final note; We do have a New Hypothesis and ideas section. You are free to discuss this stuff over there.

Quite right. I will take DrmDoc's previous post there.

8)

Well, since we've been talking so much about consciousness...a recent article concerning consciousness from New Scientist:

Electrodes implanted in the brains of people with epilepsy might have resolved an ancient question about consciousness.

Signals from the electrodes seem to show that consciousness arises from the coordinated activity of the entire brain. The signals also take us closer to finding an objective "consciousness signature" that could be used to probe the process in animals and people with brain damage without inserting electrodes.

Previously it wasn't clear whether a dedicated brain area, or "seat of consciousness", was responsible for guiding our subjective view of the world, or whether consciousness was the result of concerted activity across the whole brain.

Probing the process has been a challenge, as non-invasive techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and EEG give either spatial or temporal information but not both. The best way to get both simultaneously is to implant electrodes deep inside the skull, but it is difficult to justify this in healthy people for ethical reasons.

Brainy opportunity
Now neuroscientist Raphaël Gaillard of INSERM in Gif sur Yvette, France, and colleagues have taken advantage of a unique opportunity. They have probed consciousness in 10 people who had intercranial electrodes implanted for treating drug-resistant epilepsy.

While monitoring signals from these electrodes, Gaillard's team flashed words in front of the volunteers for just 29 milliseconds. The words were either threatening (kill, anger) or emotionally neutral (cousin, see).

The words were preceded and followed by visual "masks", which block the words from being consciously processed, or the masks following the words weren't used, meaning the words could be consciously processed. The volunteers had to press a button to indicate the nature of the word, allowing the researchers to confirm whether the volunteer was conscious of it or not.

Between the 10 volunteers, the researchers received information from a total of 176 electrodes, which covered almost the whole brain. During the first 300 milliseconds of the experiment, brain activity during both the non-conscious and conscious tasks was very similar, indicating that the process of consciousness had not kicked in. But after that, there were several types of brain activity that only occurred in the individuals who were aware of the words.

Lost seat
First, there was an increase in the voltage levels of the signals in their brains. Second, the frequency and phase of neurons firing in different parts of the brain seemed to synchronise. Then some of these synchronised signals appeared to be triggering others. For example, activity in the occipital lobe seemed to cause activity in the frontal lobe.

Because this activity only occurred in volunteers when they were aware of the words, Gaillard's team argue that it constitutes a consciousness signature. As much of this activity was spread across the brain, they say that consciousness has no single "seat". "Consciousness is more a question of dynamics, than of a local activity," says Gaillard.

Bernard Baars of the Neuroscience Institute in San Diego, California, who proposed a "global access" theory of consciousness in 1983 agrees: "I'm thrilled by these results."

He says they provide the "first really solid, direct evidence" for his own theory. He also says that having such a signature will make it easier to look for signs of consciousness in people with brain damage, infants and animals with the help of non-invasive techniques such as EEG.

Journal reference: PLoS Biology, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000061

Originally Posted by gottspieler

While monitoring signals from these electrodes, Gaillard's team flashed words in front of the volunteers for just 29 milliseconds. The words were either threatening (kill, anger) or emotionally neutral (cousin, see).

The words were preceded and followed by visual "masks", which block the words from being consciously processed, or the masks following the words weren't used, meaning the words could be consciously processed. The volunteers had to press a button to indicate the nature of the word, allowing the researchers to confirm whether the volunteer was conscious of it or not.

Between the 10 volunteers, the researchers received information from a total of 176 electrodes, which covered almost the whole brain. During the first 300 milliseconds of the experiment, brain activity during both the non-conscious and conscious tasks was very similar, indicating that the process of consciousness had not kicked in. But after that, there were several types of brain activity that only occurred in the individuals who were aware of the words.

By “visual ‘masks’”, I presume the experiment was on the order of subliminal messaging? If so, we know subliminal messages evoke unconsciously processed behaviors rather than those suggestive of conscious processing. I hardly believe that the non-activation of conscious brain processes during such experiments constitute anything more significant than what we know inherently; i.e., influences below the threshold of our conscious awareness do not stimulate the cognitive processes of the conscious brain. If the information you’ve provide is correct, I believe the only evidence such experiments provide is the distinction in conscious brain activation when it is presented with overt and covert visual stimuli. How the brain responds to varying types of sensory stimuli is not, in my opinion, entirely suggestive of what consciousness may truly be or how it may manifest in the brain.

If we accept consciousness as a construct of brain function, then our brain constructs consciousness based on the information it has and receives. Clearly, the information provided to the brain in the above referenced experiments was presented in a way that deprive the brain of what it may have required to form a response. Rather than some measure of consciousness, the experiment was a measure of brain responses to varying stimuli. If we are truly interested in the nature of consciousness, I think we can get a better sense of that quality through the past 100 years of decerebration and brain injury study. Decerebration studies in particular provide fascinating evidence of sustained behaviors in the absence of cortical structure. These studies seem to suggest some measure of consciousness persists in the absence of what many consider to be our seat of awareness. I welcome your thoughts.

Rather than some measure of consciousness, the experiment was a measure of brain responses to varying stimuli.

I agree.

These studies seem to suggest some measure of consciousness persists in the absence of what many consider to be our seat of awareness.

It indeed does. Richard Restak touches upon this in The Naked Brain.


I should have read the article above before posting it.

Hello All,

In recent weeks, I’ve been experimenting with a method that focuses dream production by way of motivational thoughts. I’ve been applying this method to my study of the unconscious as a way of trying to understand what physical, mental, or social factors likely contribute most prominently to the responses of the unconscious suggested by dream content. My effort in all of this is to further my understanding of the unconscious dialogue dream content suggests and how that content is unconsciously selected.

It is a popular belief that our unconscious mind composes dream imagery as an effect of the subliminal influences arising from our conscious concerns and experiences. Motivational thoughts, as I perceive their influence, insert focused concerns into the conscious thought process with the intent of producing a subliminal effect or response. A motivational thought, for example, could involve a specific concern about one’s finances with a defined objective or outcome query. The key is to note that query before sleep with the expectation of having a response through dream content. Of particular importance to this process is the idea of communicating or communing with one’s self.

I cannot recommend this method of study for those who have little understanding of or interest in dreams and dreaming. Even those who regularly study their dreams seldom understand their experiences. A regular visitor to a dream discussion website I moderate, for example, wanted to experience an “awesome” dream (a fact she noted before sleep) and she subsequently dreamed about the inappropriate advances of a therapist. She didn’t grasp the significance of her experience as I did; i.e., she didn’t understand how her wanting to revel in some dream experience was like a therapist taking advantage of her instead of assisting in her understand of her mental (dream) experiences. Unconsciously, this dream experience was a critique of the unproductive conscious intent suggested by the dreamer’s motivational thought. This dream was also, in my view, further evidence that the unconscious mind cannot be shape by any conscious directive or will, such as, wanting to experience an “awesome” dream. If dialogue is the intent of our study of the unconscious, I would suggest that study begin with a serious regard for the potentially insightful perspective the unconscious appears to offer.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hello All,

In recent weeks, I’ve been experimenting with a method that focuses dream production by way of motivational thoughts. I’ve been applying this method to my study of the unconscious as a way of trying to understand what physical, mental, or social factors likely contribute most prominently to the responses of the unconscious suggested by dream content. My effort in all of this is to further my understanding of the unconscious dialogue dream content suggests and how that content is unconsciously selected.

It is a popular belief that our unconscious mind composes dream imagery as an effect of the subliminal influences arising from our conscious concerns and experiences. Motivational thoughts, as I perceive their influence, insert focused concerns into the conscious thought process with the intent of producing a subliminal effect or response. A motivational thought, for example, could involve a specific concern about one’s finances with a defined objective or outcome query. The key is to note that query before sleep with the expectation of having a response through dream content. Of particular importance to this process is the idea of communicating or communing with one’s self.

I cannot recommend this method of study for those who have little understanding of or interest in dreams and dreaming. Even those who regularly study their dreams seldom understand their experiences. A regular visitor to a dream discussion website I moderate, for example, wanted to experience an “awesome” dream (a fact she noted before sleep) and she subsequently dreamed about the inappropriate advances of a therapist. She didn’t grasp the significance of her experience as I did; i.e., she didn’t understand how her wanting to revel in some dream experience was like a therapist taking advantage of her instead of assisting in her understand of her mental (dream) experiences. Unconsciously, this dream experience was a critique of the unproductive conscious intent suggested by the dreamer’s motivational thought. This dream was also, in my view, further evidence that the unconscious mind cannot be shape by any conscious directive or will, such as, wanting to experience an “awesome” dream. If dialogue is the intent of our study of the unconscious, I would suggest that study begin with a serious regard for the potentially insightful perspective the unconscious appears to offer.

So basically things we might actually think are right, or ok consciously, may be known by our unconscious to be bad, or harmful, like trying to manipulate a dream experience for fun or instant pleasure ?

Originally Posted by AeDeAeMn0886

So basically things we might actually think are right, or ok consciously, may be known by our unconscious to be bad, or harmful, like trying to manipulate a dream experience for fun or instant pleasure ?

This particular dream experience suggests that may be true. For the dreamer, the experience she desired was disagreable to her unconscious. Although the dreamer may have believed her motivational thought (popularly referred to as dream incubation) was innocuous, an aspect of the dreamer's awareness knew it was not. The following is an extract of my discussion with the dreamer:

Originally Posted by the dreamer

i don't completely understand what you meant by this (but i'm totally interested!!!!):: ------>''requesting an awesome dream from your unconscious is like a therapist who only desires to take advantage of you for his personal enjoyment instead of helping you to understand your mental (dream) experiences.'' "On some level, you understand that reveling in your dream experiences is not what you should be doing.''<------(and when you said this, i was thinking that u are right but i'm not too sure on why not )?

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although you may recall your dreams with the experience of a single entity, in reality the person you are awake and the person you are when you dream are not the same. The person you are awake is your conscious awareness, while the person you are when you dream is your unconscious awareness--in truth, the two are neurologically separate entities.

In your dream, your unconscious self was represented by you, while your conscious self was represented by the therapist. The dream showed how your unconscious self (you) perceived your conscious self (therapist) as someone who should be helping it to understand itself, which is what we all expect of a therapist. Instead, your conscious effort--as suggested by the randy behavior of the therapist--was to engage your unconsciousness in what it considered unproductive behavior. This was the effect of trying to focus your dreaming on experiences of pleasure rather than purpose.

At this particular time in your mutual experience, your unconscious self wants a therapist as a partner in its pursuit of understanding instead of a self-absorbed adventurer. Regardless of your past dream experiences and what you may consciously believe, dreaming is a serious endeavour to your unconscious self. To your unconsciousness, thoughts are deeds. With the vast resources at its disposal, you are capable of reaching depths of understanding and personal experience very few will ever know. The access to all of this is how this all began--with a purposeful note to self before sleep.

It hardly seems rational or healthy to adopt a seemingly schizophrenic perspective of one's consciousness, psyche, or identity; nevertheless, the evidence in my study of the dreaming brain supports this bifurcated view of consciousness as a precise assessment given the functional distinctions the brain appears to produce.

FROM: Why Do We Sleep (Health and Medicine Forum)

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I don't believe our brains during our unconscious experience pertain our perception for random experience, or shut us off, as I rather believe that our unconscious pertains our perception, or consciousness rather, as much as it can.

As I have tried to convey, consciousness, as a cognitive state of awareness, is a construct of brain function. The awareness suggested by the unconscious state of brain function during dream sleep is not necessarily a reduced state of consciousness as your above comments may suggest. Our consciousness during dream sleep is constructed by a brain with diminished sensitivity to tactile and aural sensory input. This diminished sensitivity changes the nature of consciousness by excluding the concerns and considerations associated with the impact of physical/material experience.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

An example would be a spontanous incident that caused major damage to the body, or exceeded the pain to which the conscious mind could percieve; something that may have been too much for us to experience; we may fall unconscious as a result, but would still experience some form of perception internally.

Although the instinctive and primitive systems of the brain may register the sensory impact of physical trauma, coma and anesthesia can effectively disconnect the thought and reasoning centers of the brain from trauma sensory.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Although, this is probably not confirmed, I do believe that whilst in a coma, or unconscious by external means (e.g. anesthesia), our experience is generated within a deep unconscious environment. One of the reasons is due to personal experience; I was to have surgery at one point and was given anesthetic, and as a result I fell unconscious during the entire procedure. Upon awakening, I had began to remember my internal (unconscious) experiences during the procedure; by memory, this felt as if it happened during the entire procedure (This didn't feel as if it was compressed memory of some sort, and had felt as if I experience conscious existence during the entire time I was placed unconscious).

Some anesthetized patients have reported incidents of wakeful perception during their surgical procedure. In my opinion, this suggests some insufficiency in the measure or type of anesthesia the patient received.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I do agree with you on the dreaming brain, that it is of a system that enables for ourselves to prepare for the worst, to solve and to consolidate our percetion, or position in life.

This isn’t exactly my position: why we dream is rooted in a vestigial brain process, what we dream is a determinant of the unconscious mind and how it perceives influence.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

However, I also, and still believe it is a way in which our brain transfers experience (Or awareness rather) to another portion of the brain in order to replenish the resources for that given portion that was initially producing awareness. As a result, other processes can begin; body growth, healing and health-associated neural activity can be activated, most of which may be of severe inconvinience to conscious perception.

What we believe and what the evidence suggest may not be quite the same. There are certainly time when we awake from dreaming feeling more exhausted and less replenished than we felt before retiring. If our ideas about the nature of dreaming is inconsistent with the evidence, we should dig a little deeper than our ideas might suggest--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Orexin-A may be a way for activating external sensory perception. However, although those with Narocolepsy may experience external perception, they lack proper cognitive function; they are unable to process information in correlation to the external environment. Orexin-A may be essential to enabling for the conscious mind to utilize processes that interact with the external environment; the lack of such may be contrary, and would enable for the conscious mind to reduce its external interaction and thus, would switch to internal means for interactivity.

Essentially, I have suggested as much. I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

FROM: Why Do We Sleep (Health and Medicine Forum)
As I have tried to convey, consciousness, as a cognitive state of awareness, is a construct of brain function. The awareness suggested by the unconscious state of brain function during dream sleep is not necessarily a reduced state of consciousness as your above comments may suggest. Our consciousness during dream sleep is constructed by a brain with diminished sensitivity to tactile and aural sensory input. This diminished sensitivity changes the nature of consciousness by excluding the concerns and considerations associated with the impact of physical/material experience.

Again, this is what I suggested; the dreaming brain is effectively equivilent to the waking brain, and we had agreed on it being of alternative sensory perception (e.g. the dreaming brain is the interpretation of internal experience; the waking brain is the interpretation of materialistic experiences). However, I did state that during the process of sleep prior to dreaming; prior to internal awareness, awareness is reduced, and then reactivated on alterative portions of the brain (e.g. in order to prevent one system from conflicting with another, one system is deactivated and thus, the experience is reduced whilst another illogical system (A system that may appear illogical to materialistic experience) is activated).

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although the instinctive and primitive systems of the brain may register the sensory impact of physical trauma, coma and anesthesia can effectively disconnect the thought and reasoning centers of the brain from trauma sensory.

The lack of thought and reason doesn't neccessarily disconnect experience of any form of reality; an individual may still experience some form of perception, even at its fundamental basis (Awareness in its pure form must be constructed somewhere within the brain, and the disconnection of other portions would effectively reduce its expansion and thus, it would deflate).

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Some anesthetized patients have reported incidents of wakeful perception during their surgical procedure. In my opinion, this suggests some insufficiency in the measure or type of anesthesia the patient received.

I do agree with this, but I'm a little skeptic that we're capable of fully disconnecting awareness (If that is what you're saying; if someone under full anesthesia of a certain type, and thus, their brain temporarily shuts off wareness? Or if not, you're on the same track as me; awareness is reduced) and then renabling it. Also, consider that if we did disable awareness and reactivated it, would this essentially be the previous individual? This then moves on to the debate of free will and undetirministic approaches of the universe (Well, if you referred to one of my previous posts on infinite existence, a detirministic life is impossible; it would conflict with something which is never ending, that also has no start - but this is an entirely alternative topic), and other areas.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

This isn’t exactly my position: why we dream is rooted in a vestigial brain process, what we dream is a determinant of the unconscious mind and how it perceives influence.

The unconscious mind is also, in turn, affected by our judgements and experience. Again, this moves on to a debate of an alternative topic, but let's consider that.. free will exists. If free will is to exist, then it cannot be detirministic; it is fundamentally undetirministic. As a result, our unconscious mind if influenced by our experience and judgements (choices), cannot be detirmined either.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

What we believe and what the evidence suggest may not be quite the same. There are certainly time when we awake from dreaming feeling more exhausted and less replenished than we felt before retiring. If our ideas about the nature of dreaming is inconsistent with the evidence, we should dig a little deeper than our ideas might suggest--in my opinion.

I agree that our beliefs may conflict with evidence. And yes, we do feel more exhausted but can gradually feel more replenished over a small period of time from which we awaken from sleep (e.g. the release of orexin-a may slowly awaken our perception of the materialistic reality); if we haven't slept for a while, we become clumsy and slow; after awakening from sleep, we generally feel more refereshed but do feel slightly exhausted, possibly due to our internal experiences (e.g. intense dreams; despite ourselves recovering fragments of the dream, other parts may have been intense experience).

It is also the interpretation of evidence; some evidence is just merely evidence, and isn't correlated with previous metaphors, or philosophies. Most of what is discovered has been found to have close relation with previous ideas merely thought upon. An effective correlation may seek reason with logic; it may reason - the intentions of such existence, with the evidence. Despite this however, I do agree that evidence can be correct in some cases; in other cases, it may be incorrect due to the interpretation of such evidence.

I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Again, this is what I suggested; the dreaming brain is effectively equivilent to the waking brain, and we had agreed on it being of alternative sensory perception (e.g. the dreaming brain is the interpretation of internal experience; the waking brain is the interpretation of materialistic experiences).

Although I have used terms like physical/material experience, it is more accurate to suggests that the waking brain interprets physical/material reality while the dreaming brain interprets mental reality.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

However, I did state that during the process of sleep prior to dreaming; prior to internal awareness, awareness is reduced, and then reactivated on alterative portions of the brain (e.g. in order to prevent one system from conflicting with another, one system is deactivated and thus, the experience is reduced whilst another illogical system (A system that may appear illogical to materialistic experience) is activated)

If schizophrenia is any evidence, clearly the waking brain cannot negotiate physical/material reality simultaneously with the active perspective of the dreaming brain. I have suggested, in a prior post, how schizophrenics appear to interpret unconscious perceptions as real experiences by way of hallucination. In this way, the schizophrenic brain appears to perceives no distinction between physical and mental reality; i.e., the barrier of consciousness between what is materially real and what is mentally real is weak in the schizophrenic brain. As a side note, schizophrenia is often associated with sleep disorders and the condition effects hypofrontality in the conscious brain, which occurs normally during dream sleep.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

The lack of thought and reason doesn't neccessarily disconnect experience of any form of reality; an individual may still experience some form of perception, even at its fundamental basis (Awareness in its pure form must be constructed somewhere within the brain, and the disconnection of other portions would effectively reduce its expansion and thus, it would deflate).

The thought and reasoning processes that produce our cognitive awareness of reality (physical and mental) do appear to disconnect from experience during the interval of activity between the states of wakefulness and dreaming. Although sensory experiences or perceptions may continue to reach the brain between waking and dreaming activations, those experiences or perceptions are often not enough to stimulate the cognitive processes associate with waking and dreaming awareness.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I do agree with this, but I'm a little skeptic that we're capable of fully disconnecting awareness (If that is what you're saying; if someone under full anesthesia of a certain type, and thus, their brain temporarily shuts off wareness? Or if not, you're on the same track as me; awareness is reduced) and then renabling it

There is cognitive awareness and instinctive awareness: the former is proactive and the latter reactive. The brain produces two distinct states of cognitive awareness: conscious (waking) and unconscious (dreaming). Between and underlying its cognitive states of waking and dreaming, there is the instinctual awareness that is devoid of the thought and reasoning processes we associated with proactive behaviors.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Also, consider that if we did disable awareness and reactivated it, would this essentially be the previous individual?

The activation and deactivation of cognitive awareness occur as a consequence of our primitive instinctive systems. Before our species became the conscious and cognitive organism it is today, our animal ancestors most certainly were an instinctual sort driven by biological and physiological need rather than cognitive design. Deactivation or the absence of cognitive awareness at the floor of brain function between waking and dreaming suggests our ancestral past.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

The unconscious mind is also, in turn, affected by our judgements and experience. Again, this moves on to a debate of an alternative topic, but let's consider that.. free will exists. If free will is to exist, then it cannot be detirministic; it is fundamentally undetirministic. As a result, our unconscious mind if influenced by our experience and judgements (choices), cannot be detirmined either.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “cannot be detirmined”. If consciousness is a construct of brain function and brain function is predicate on the operations of it primitive systems, then the function of those primitive systems determines the nature of brain’s ability to construct consciousness.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

It is also the interpretation of evidence; some evidence is just merely evidence…it may be incorrect due to the interpretation of such evidence.

I agree; how we interpret evidence determines its value and validity. In several cases I have reviewed, misinterpreted evidence has become the basis for many established ideas about the dreaming brain (e.g., REM as a response of neural signals from the pons). The only guard against such misinterpretations, in my view, is to examine the nature of a thing from it beginning as far back as can be examined. I welcome your continued interest.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although I have used terms like physical/material experience, it is more accurate to suggests that the waking brain interprets physical/material reality while the dreaming brain interprets mental reality.

We each have our own definitions and perspectives of both, the waking and dreaming brain. However, what you describe may be of conventional definitions, so we'll stick to your definitions in future.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

If schizophrenia is any evidence, clearly the waking brain cannot negotiate physical/material reality simultaneously with the active perspective of the dreaming brain. I have suggested, in a prior post, how schizophrenics appear to interpret unconscious perceptions as real experiences by way of hallucination. In this way, the schizophrenic brain appears to perceives no distinction between physical and mental reality; i.e., the barrier of consciousness between what is materially real and what is mentally real is weak in the schizophrenic brain. As a side note, schizophrenia is often associated with sleep disorders and the condition effects hypofrontality in the conscious brain, which occurs normally during dream sleep.

I agree that the waking brain would be unable to distinguish between internal and external experiences due to the effect of hypofrontality. As a result, their unconscious perceptions of reality internally (e.g. their internal imagination) should be projected into reality from the perspective of the conscious brain; the conscious mind would be unable to notice the difference and would essentially be hallucinating unconscious experiences in the conscious world - reality. However, again, this moves on to other topics; whether the unconscious mind during conscious brain activation is still a form of consciousness itself, and as to whether it can communicate between the conscious brain that is, itself a consciousness; or rather, dual consciousness - the brain, if it is capable, perhaps of producing multiple forms of distinct awareness and control. Alternatively, perhaps the unconscious mind is merely an autonomous system that is highly sophisticated in comparison to the systems we've attempted to create to replicate our conscious perceptions and commitments; perhaps, the unconscious mind collects and observes the behaviour of conscious experiences, and later replicates them during a later age, leading to the illusion that the unconscious is a form of consciousness - perhaps in schizophrenics, individuals believe that their unconscious is another self, as they are themselves. Also, perhaps the reduction of the barrier between consciousness and the unconscious leads to this issue. Also, during hypnotic states of trance, this barrier is also reduced and in some cases, individuals can awaken and hallucinate some things that are not real.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The thought and reasoning processes that produce our cognitive awareness of reality (physical and mental) do appear to disconnect from experience during the interval of activity between the states of wakefulness and dreaming. Although sensory experiences or perceptions may continue to reach the brain between waking and dreaming activations, those experiences or perceptions are often not enough to stimulate the cognitive processes associate with waking and dreaming awareness.

Alright, but we've now got to place things in perspective. Here's my perspective: although the brain does produce 100% awareness, it can manipulate awareness but regardless of how it is manipulated, it will still exist. In some cases, parts of the brain are deactivated; those of which are active during the waking brain; this doesn't shut down awareness, or teleports it to another part of the brain, but rather reduces it, whilst activating another portion that may be responsible for dreaming experiences. To clarify, the fundamental systems of conscious experiences during the waking reality (Alright, let me clarify what I mean, the conscious experiences I'm refering to are what you experience; your awareness) are deactivated, and thus awareness is reduced until an internal cognitive environment is actived, creating what we know as dreaming. In other words, all these systems are supplementary to awareness, deactivating and reactivating them may reduce or expand awareness - considering if the brain produces only one form of awareness.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

There is cognitive awareness and instinctive awareness: the former is proactive and the latter reactive. The brain produces two distinct states of cognitive awareness: conscious (waking) and unconscious (dreaming). Between and underlying its cognitive states of waking and dreaming, there is the instinctual awareness that is devoid of the thought and reasoning processes we associated with proactive behaviors.

I agree with you that we switch from logic and reasoning to instinctive behaviour; from our waking experiences to the dreaming experiences. However, and again, this then asks the question as to which is you, and if one is shut off, do you still exist? Well, ofcourse you do, but again, you become aware of your experiences internal, suggesting that you are both and thus, the brain only produces on awareness - one consciousness. However, we may think that waking/dreaming experiences are distinct, but perhaps one is transfered to another; if you refer to my previous post, I described the systems responsible for waking/dreaming experiences that are supplementary for consciousness. Deactivating one may enable for another to be activated and thus, awareness is reduced; this bypasses the issue of death; if awareness is deactivated completely, then the brain would essentially kill you, and then bring you back to life.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The activation and deactivation of cognitive awareness occur as a consequence of our primitive instinctive systems. Before our species became the conscious and cognitive organism it is today, our animal ancestors most certainly were an instinctual sort driven by biological and physiological need rather than cognitive design. Deactivation or the absence of cognitive awareness at the floor of brain function between waking and dreaming suggests our ancestral past.

I agree with you here. The cognitive environment gives ourselves freedom; and then again, this moves on to a question of free will. Let's consider it does exist, then perhaps the cognitive brain was the construct of free will, and all others were merely instinctive. Both essentially to myself however, are forms of awareness; experiences of reality. Instinctive experiences is awareness with the lack of freedom, whilst cognitive, or conscious experiences are experiences with a full expansion of awareness; awareness with freedom. Contrary to this however, perhaps the primitive brain was lacking awareness and was a system that competed for survival and when it succeeded its survival, it had then constructed awareness during times in which peace had arisen, or, it may have constructed this in an effort to survive against its competitors.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “cannot be detirmined”. If consciousness is a construct of brain function and brain function is predicate on the operations of it primitive systems, then the function of those primitive systems determines the nature of brain’s ability to construct consciousness.

I partially agree with you here. However, although consciousness is a construct of our brain and the brain is constructed from the same matter of any other in the universe, the question is its design. Let's consider that at some point during the time in which life was evolving, that biology had integrated the freedom of choice, and thus, the end result became random. Let's also consider this to be one of the most difficult of all things to create - and we do know random exists in the universe. If it's random, then it cannot be detirmined; again, it is purely random. So, if free will exists, then we cannot be detirmined. In other words, although the primitive brain may be autonomous, and may be capable of being detirmined with enough data and variables, the you - the experience, or awareness, may be equipped with the freedom of choice inside a cognitive environment. If you refer to my previous response (Above), the cognitive environment may be the construct for free will; our choices cannot be fully detirmined. Essentially, it is this that seperates ourselves from mere matter. To clarify fully, here's my idea for fundamental awareness (I believe random is product of choice and choice is the product of awarness):

If it is random, then what caused the effect? Something had to have caused the effect, and then we can consider that there was nothing that had caused the effect. However, let's consider that this is awareness; awareness can choose, but cannot will what it wants. The end result from what is chosen by awarness over x period of time, is purely random; essentially, random is the product of awareness. Theoretically if this is possible however, some of the most fundamental attributes of the universe - or life - are self-aware.

But again, this moves on to another topic, as you can see.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I agree; how we interpret evidence determines its value and validity. In several cases I have reviewed, misinterpreted evidence has become the basis for many established ideas about the dreaming brain (e.g., REM as a response of neural signals from the pons). The only guard against such misinterpretations, in my view, is to examine the nature of a thing from it beginning as far back as can be examined. I welcome your continued interest.

I agree with you here. However, what I say is, you're not always wrong, and you're not always correct. It's always worth a try, even if it's wrong; the wrong answer may in turn, by a correct answer for another question.

I welcome your continued throughts.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I agree that the waking brain would be unable to distinguish between internal and external experiences due to the effect of hypofrontality.

Hypofrontality in the waking brain is a symptom of some disorder in another part of our central nervous system. If this condition in the waking brain of the schizophrenic arises as it normally does at the onset of dreaming, then hypofrontality in schizophrenia suggests an obstruction in the follow of physical/material sensory data to the hierarchy of the schizophrenic brain; i.e., the schizophrenic brain may not experience physical/material reality to the measure of a normal brain.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

As a result, their unconscious perceptions of reality internally (e.g. their internal imagination) should be projected into reality from the perspective of the conscious brain; the conscious mind would be unable to notice the difference and would essentially be hallucinating unconscious experiences in the conscious world - reality.

Rather than imaginations, I have theorized that schizophrenic hallucinations are interpretations of mental influence of a sort similar to what occurs in the brain when we dream.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…whether the unconscious mind during conscious brain activation is still a form of consciousness itself, and as to whether it can communicate between the conscious brain that is, itself a consciousness; or rather, dual consciousness - the brain, if it is capable, perhaps of producing multiple forms of distinct awareness and control.

By way of a waking and dreaming state of consciousness, the brain appears to prove its ability to produce at least two distinct states of consciousness. Schizophrenia appears to prove that these distinct permutations of consciousness cannot co-exist in the same state for the brain to function properly.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Alternatively, perhaps the unconscious mind is merely an autonomous system that is highly sophisticated in comparison to the systems we've attempted to create to replicate our conscious perceptions and commitments; perhaps, the unconscious mind collects and observes the behaviour of conscious experiences, and later replicates them during a later age, leading to the illusion that the unconscious is a form of consciousness…

The unconscious, in my view, is autonomous in that it is distinct from the will and directives of the conscious mind. Although distinct, the unconscious appears to share in the affect of the influences upon the conscious mind to some degree.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…perhaps in schizophrenics, individuals believe that their unconscious is another self, as they are themselves.

It is difficult to know the mind of the schizophrenic without being one. One can only speculate given the available functional and behavioral evidence.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Also, perhaps the reduction of the barrier between consciousness and the unconscious leads to this issue.

As much, I have suggested here.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Also, during hypnotic states of trance, this barrier is also reduced and in some cases, individuals can awaken and hallucinate some things that are not real.

I have theorized hypnosis induced behaviors as distinctly different from schizophrenia. Hypnosis is a corruption in the data the brain receives via its primitive subsystems; schizophrenia is a probable obstruction to the data the brain receives.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Alright, but we've now got to place things in perspective. Here's my perspective: although the brain does produce 100% awareness, it can manipulate awareness but regardless of how it is manipulated, it will still exist. In some cases, parts of the brain are deactivated; those of which are active during the waking brain; this doesn't shut down awareness, or teleports it to another part of the brain, but rather reduces it, whilst activating another portion that may be responsible for dreaming experiences.

The floor upon which brain function constructs cognitive awareness is instinctual awareness. Instinctual awareness--produced by the primitive subsystems of the brain--appears to mediate our autonomous physiological systems and initiates the level of brain activation appropriate to the needs of those systems.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

To clarify, the fundamental systems of conscious experiences during the waking reality (Alright, let me clarify what I mean, the conscious experiences I'm refering to are what you experience; your awareness) are deactivated, and thus awareness is reduced until an internal cognitive environment is actived, creating what we know as dreaming. In other words, all these systems are supplementary to awareness, deactivating and reactivating them may reduce or expand awareness - considering if the brain produces only one form of awareness.

Cognitive awareness arises from the floor of instinctual awareness, which is reactive to the pressing needs of the body rather than thoughtful (proactive) of future needs.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

However, and again, this then asks the question as to which is you, and if one is shut off, do you still exist? Well, ofcourse you do, but again, you become aware of your experiences internal, suggesting that you are both and thus, the brain only produces on awareness - one consciousness. However, we may think that waking/dreaming experiences are distinct, but perhaps one is transfered to another…

The best analogy would be cake baking: If we add chocolate and strawberries to the batter of a vanilla cake, is it still a vanilla cake?

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Deactivating one may enable for another to be activated and thus, awareness is reduced; this bypasses the issue of death; if awareness is deactivated completely, then the brain would essentially kill you, and then bring you back to life.

Deactivatiig and reactivating the distinctive levels of consciousness is what appears to occur naturally whenever we retire to sleep. The autonomous instinctual systems ensure that death is not a factor in the interval between the levels of brain activation. Consciousness or, if you prefer, brain activation isn’t necessarily evidence of life and life isn’t necessarily evidence of consciousness.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…this moves on to a question of free will. Let's consider it does exist, then perhaps the cognitive brain was the construct of free will, and all others were merely instinctive.

Free will cannot exist without cognition--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Both essentially to myself however, are forms of awareness; experiences of reality. Instinctive experiences is awareness with the lack of freedom, whilst cognitive, or conscious experiences are experiences with a full expansion of awareness; awareness with freedom. Contrary to this however, perhaps the primitive brain was lacking awareness and was a system that competed for survival and when it succeeded its survival, it had then constructed awareness during times in which peace had arisen, or, it may have constructed this in an effort to survive against its competitors.

My study suggests humanity achieved cognitive superiority as an outcome of its survival strategies. In a prior post, I described how the inferior sensory of our animal ancestors--compared to predators--may have compelled their efforts to evolve reasoning beyond the limits of their sensory capabilities.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Let's consider that at some point during the time in which life was evolving, that biology had integrated the freedom of choice, and thus, the end result became random.

Life and existence, in my opinion, has been random from the very beginning and continues to be to some degree.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Let's also consider this to be one of the most difficult of all things to create - and we do know random exists in the universe. If it's random, then it cannot be detirmined; again, it is purely random. So, if free will exists, then we cannot be detirmined. In other words, although the primitive brain may be autonomous, and may be capable of being detirmined with enough data and variables, the you - the experience, or awareness, may be equipped with the freedom of choice inside a cognitive environment. If you refer to my previous response (Above), the cognitive environment may be the construct for free will; our choices cannot be fully detirmined. Essentially, it is this that seperates ourselves from mere matter. To clarify fully, here's my idea for fundamental awareness (I believe random is product of choice and choice is the product of awarness):

If it is random, then what caused the effect? Something had to have caused the effect, and then we can consider that there was nothing that had caused the effect. However, let's consider that this is awareness; awareness can choose, but cannot will what it wants. The end result from what is chosen by awarness over x period of time, is purely random; essentially, random is the product of awareness. Theoretically if this is possible however, some of the most fundamental attributes of the universe - or life - are self-aware.

I take a simpler view: If we select two random numbers and add them together, is it possible to predict the outcome of their union? Is anything truly indeterminate?

I welcome your thoughts.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hypofrontality in the waking brain is a symptom of some disorder in another part of our central nervous system. If this condition in the waking brain of the schizophrenic arises as it normally does at the onset of dreaming, then hypofrontality in schizophrenia suggests an obstruction in the follow of physical/material sensory data to the hierarchy of the schizophrenic brain; i.e., the schizophrenic brain may not experience physical/material reality to the measure of a normal brain.

I agree with this, the same systems activated during the cognitive - waking brain - that are also deactivated during the dreaming brain - are less active throughout individuals with schizophrenic disorders. As a result, the lack of cognitive rationality and reason obstruct the individual from differientating between both internal (e.g. dreaming) and external environments (e.g. the waking reality). Ultimately, the lack of functional logic/reason systems in the brain have a significant affect on conscious perception.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Rather than imaginations, I have theorized that schizophrenic hallucinations are interpretations of mental influence of a sort similar to what occurs in the brain when we dream.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

By way of a waking and dreaming state of consciousness, the brain appears to prove its ability to produce at least distinction states of consciousness. Schizophrenia appears to prove that these distinct permutations of consciousness cannot co-exist in the same state for the brain to function properly.

So, it may be possible for the brain to produce multiple distinct states of consciousness, each of which are essentially their own self? But, it isn't possible for them all to exist on the same level - as they cannot co-exist in the same state? If so, this would alter our current perceptions of consciousness; consciousness may be like a cake that is layed, and if you slice layers from the cake, you discover independent layers; it segments.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The unconscious, in my view, is autonomous in that it is distinct from the will and directives of the conscious mind. Although distinct, the unconscious appears to share in the affect of the influences upon the conscious mind to some degree.

I agree with this. Again, although it may share influences and behave similar, a sophisticated autonomous system may be capable of such effects.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

It is difficult to know the mind of the schizophrenic without being one. One can only speculate given the available functional and behavioral evidence.

I agree. However, if you refer to my previous response (above), if the unconscious is a highly sophisticated autonomous system, it should be capable of creating the deception that it is, itself a form of consciousness - based on the data it collects during individual experience throughout life.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I have theorized hypnosis induced behaviors as distinctly different from schizophrenia. Hypnosis is a corruption in the data the brain receives via its primitive subsystems; schizophrenia is a probable obstruction to the data the brain receives.

I agree that hypnosis differs to schizophrenia. Essentially however, hypnosis is the reduction of critical barriers between both, the conscious and unconscious mind; reducing the barriers between would establish a communication between the two; if the conscious mind is reduced however to a state that is not sleep or dreaming, whilst pertaining some form of awareness, then it may be possible to communicate with the unconscious mind and to learn more of supressed experiences, thoughts and memories, and perhaps to even alter individual (conscious) experiences. This, although is the corruption of data, is overtly committed; a peer, or hypnotist may alter conscious experiences thought communication between the unconscious. Schizophrenia however, is active during the active states of the waking brain, whereas hypnosis establishes a form of communication during reduced states of conscious brain activation (Not sleep, but similar), otherwise known as, deep states of hypnotic trance, or intense deep states of relaxation.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The floor upon which brain function constructs cognitive awareness is instinctual awareness. Instinctual awareness--produced by the primitive subsystems of the brain--appears to mediate our autonomous physiological systems and initiates the level of brain activation appropriate to the needs of those systems.

So, we have two floors of awareness, each of which are both active upon each other, and the fundamental awareness is built upon our physiological autonomous brain structure?

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Cognitive awareness arises from the floor of instinctual awareness, which is reactive to the pressing needs of the body rather than thoughtful (proactive) of future needs.

So, instinctual awareness is a form of self, in itself, right? So, by definition, instinctive awareness and cognitive awareness equivilate to two forms of awareness inside the brain, both of which are active? Thus, two forms of self - two independent experiences?

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The best analogy would be cake baking: If we add chocolate and strawberries to the batter of a vanilla cake, is it still a vanilla cake?

It's a Vanilla cake when you strip it of its chocolate and strawberries; the chocolate and strawberries were a mere addition to the Vanilla cake; they enhanced the cake - the cake had expanded from what it was initially, so thus, the additions don't remove the cake itself and the cake is still the cake.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Deactivatiig and reactivating the distinctive levels of consciousness is what appears to occur naturally whenever we retire to sleep. The autonomous instinctual systems ensure that death is not a factor in the interval between the levels of brain activation. Consciousness or, if you prefer, brain activation isn’t necessarily evidence of life and life isn’t necessarily evidence of consciousness.

Yes, I agree that this occurs naturally. However, if consciousness is not life, then what is life? In my definition, life is aware and when you remove awareness, it is no longer life. Life is what seperates ourselves from autonomous systems; it seperates ourselves from our legs, that are just a mere construct of matter; it seperates ourselves from the system we use to communicate through now, that although is sophisticated, cannot be self-aware. Life to me, is the experience of awareness; consciousness is evident of life. Brain activation however, does not neccessarily equivilate to consciousness; such activation may be for subjective requirements, whilst other systems may be supplementary, or essential to consciousness. That is also to say that, not all systems construct consciousness, whilst others do; the activation and deactivation of the systems responsible for consciousness alter individual experience.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Free will cannot exist without cognition--in my opinion.

I agree, and this is what I had suggested. I had offered other options for choice, each of which may have be responsible; primitive systems may have once had free will - or cognitive systems may be the only systems capable of free will.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

My study suggests humanity achieved cognitive superiority as an outcome of its survival strategies. In a prior post, I described how the inferior sensory of our animal ancestors--compared to predators--may have compelled their efforts to evolve reasoning beyond the limits of their sensory capabilities.

I agree with this, the expansion of awareness enabled for the use of more sophisticated tactics against our competitors, and thus we became the top of the hirearchy. As a result however, we have ultimately hindered the ability for some to evolve; we are in the position of those whom are to evolve into us; they cannot do so, due to our civilization on this world; we need to move off-world in order to enable for the others to have their chance to evolve. It's almost as if that evolution is a traffic jam. But that, is an alternative topic that also looks into the future of our species, and those who are already higher to ourselves (Yes, I believe that there are other species who are evolved from humans, and that they may be somehow, preventing ourselves from reaching off-world (There are many reasons, one suggests the lack of exponential increase of comic colonization. Considering how all other areas of humanity, including computing and mechanics, have essentially increased exponentially, much like a singularity. One area however, was unable to move on - that area was, space colonization. We apparently landed on the moon in 1969, and haven't went back ever since! We were supposed to establish bases on the moon! Also, here's another thing that's not right; for all the planets, star systems and galaxies throughout the universe, how can we have not yet discovered a form of intelligence equivilent to our own? I find this incredibly odd, and theoretically and by Drakes Equation, there should be numberous of intelligent civilizations existent in our galaxy - and that's just our galaxy! There have to be ones more intelligent than our own. Also, if they do exist, and personally, I believe that at least once during the existence of life on Earth, one form of advanced race should have at least visited and perhaps even observed over the years - and there have been controversies over E.T's visiting. If they do exist and are visting, then they may be the reason why we cannot move on, for whatever given reason)). Again, this is another topic - and my apologies for going off-topic.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Life and existence, in my opinion, has been random from the very beginning and continues to be to some degree.

Ofcourse it's random, we cannot gather the data from which it had arisen. But if it is purely random, then nothing caused the effect - that is if we consider it to have a beginning. But this is impossible, you cannot get something out of nothing, then that means.. that something has always existed - perhaps God (I'm not religeous, I'm athiest, but for the sake of discussion...) - or, perhaps life is infinite, if you refer to my previous posts in this thread and thus, you can never find a beginning because you'll find something that created something that created something that created something, and so forth.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

I take a simpler view: If we select two random numbers and add them together, is it possible to predict the outcome of their union? Is anything truly indeterminate?

I welcome your thoughts.

No, if they're random, you cannot predict result; you can't do so, even if you selected to random numbers and added them together - they are random, and the end result of the two added is also random. If it's random, it cannot be detirmined, and thus, there is indetirministic aspects of life.

To me, I prefer compatabilism; you can have detirministic aspects of the universe, and indetirministic aspects (e.g. free will).

I welcome your continued thoughts, this has yet again, been a great discussion with you.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

So, it may be possible for the brain to produce multiple distinct states of consciousness, each of which are essentially their own self? But, it isn't possible for them all to exist on the same level - as they cannot co-exist in the same state? If so, this would alter our current perceptions of consciousness; consciousness may be like a cake that is layed, and if you slice layers from the cake, you discover independent layers; it segments.

By my study, the brain only produces two distinct states of consciousness. Multiple consciousnesses beyond those two states have not been proven to my satisfaction.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…although it [the unconscious] may share influences and behave similar, a sophisticated autonomous system may be capable of such effects.

Although the unconscious may be affected by shared influences upon the conscious mind, the behavior of the unconscious is distinct from that of the conscious mind. The behavior of the unconscious conforms to the reality of mental influence, while the conscious mind conforms to the reality of physical/material experience. The conscious mind takes a literal perspective of reality. Even our fantasies, while conscious, are literal depictions rather than interpretations of influence. To the unconscious, as suggested by dream content, all experience is an interpretation of influence. For example, we may imagine a house in our waking mind as nothing more than a structure where some imagined activity takes place. In the world of dreams, a house is a perspective of some social or mental structure and, as such, it could represent any number of structured social or mental perceptions or routines as experienced by the unconscious.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…if you refer to my previous response (above), if the unconscious is a highly sophisticated autonomous system, it should be capable of creating the deception that it is, itself a form of consciousness - based on the data it collects during individual experience throughout life.

The unconscious, as suggested by the dreaming state of brain function, is a form of consciousness and not a deception in my view. Executing such a deception infers a cognitive process that in itself would invalidate the notion of the unconscious as a deception. There are specific functional distinction between the conscious and unconscious behavior of the brain, which suggests neither to be a deception.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Essentially however, hypnosis is the reduction of critical barriers between both, the conscious and unconscious mind; reducing the barriers between would establish a communication between the two…

Hypnosis, in my view, isn’t a reduction in the barrier between the conscious and unconscious mind. Hypnosis lowers the inhibitions of the conscious mind and implants faulty data that produces aberrant behaviors. Such behaviors are not the acts of the unconscious but rather the actions of an uninhibited conscious mind--in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…if the conscious mind is reduced however to a state that is not sleep or dreaming, whilst pertaining some form of awareness, then it may be possible to communicate with the unconscious mind and to learn more of supressed experiences, thoughts and memories, and perhaps to even alter individual (conscious) experiences.

Repression is a mental device of the conscious mind as I have stated in prior posts. It is the conscious mind that builds barriers between what it chooses to remember or think about.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Schizophrenia however, is active during the active states of the waking brain, whereas hypnosis establishes a form of communication during reduced states of conscious brain activation (Not sleep, but similar), otherwise known as, deep states of hypnotic trance, or intense deep states of relaxation.

In my view, hypnosis is a lowering of inhibitions in the conscious mind rather than a lowering of barriers between it and the unconscious. Schizophrenia, again in my opinion, is the erosion of the barrier between two distinct cognitive processes.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

So, we have two floors of awareness, each of which are both active upon each other, and the fundamental awareness is built upon our physiological autonomous brain structure?

There is just one floor of awareness (instinctual) where upon cognitive awareness is constructed.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

So, instinctual awareness is a form of self, in itself, right? So, by definition, instinctive awareness and cognitive awareness equivilate to two forms of awareness inside the brain, both of which are active? Thus, two forms of self - two independent experiences?

Instinctual awareness is not of the type suggestive of consciousness. Instinctual awareness arises from the primitive subsystems of the brain and is reactive to the needs of the body. Rather than being thoughtful of our bodily needs, these primitive systems are merely responsive to the critical systems of the body. As a response to our bodily needs, our primitive subsystems initiate those cognitive processes appropriate to its needs. This is a reflexive process rather than an act of cognitive awareness.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

It's a Vanilla cake when you strip it of its chocolate and strawberries; the chocolate and strawberries were a mere addition to the Vanilla cake; they enhanced the cake - the cake had expanded from what it was initially, so thus, the additions don't remove the cake itself and the cake is still the cake.

It may remain a cake, but it is not “vanilla” cake. Consciousness may be awareness, but that awareness changes according to how it is constructed. Hence, “vanilla” cake is not the same as “chocolate, strawberries, and vanilla” cake.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…if consciousness is not life, then what is life? In my definition, life is aware and when you remove awareness, it is no longer life. Life is what seperates ourselves from autonomous systems; it seperates ourselves from our legs, that are just a mere construct of matter; it seperates ourselves from the system we use to communicate through now, that although is sophisticated, cannot be self-aware. Life to me, is the experience of awareness; consciousness is evident of life.

Is a tree a form of life? What about bacteria and viruses, are they not forms of life? If they are, does consciousness define their existence?

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…primitive systems may have once had free will - or cognitive systems may be the only systems capable of free will.

Free will may be a bit of an illusion, we are all bound by the will of forces beyond our will to alter.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…we have ultimately hindered the ability for some to evolve; we are in the position of those whom are to evolve into us; they cannot do so, due to our civilization on this world; we need to move off-world in order to enable for the others to have their chance to evolve. It's almost as if that evolution is a traffic jam. But that, is an alternative topic that also looks into the future of our species, and those who are already higher to ourselves (Yes, I believe that there are other species who are evolved from humans, and that they may be somehow, preventing ourselves from reaching off-world (There are many reasons, one suggests the lack of exponential increase of comic colonization. Considering how all other areas of humanity, including computing and mechanics, have essentially increased exponentially, much like a singularity. One area however, was unable to move on - that area was, space colonization. We apparently landed on the moon in 1969, and haven't went back ever since! We were supposed to establish bases on the moon! Also, here's another thing that's not right; for all the planets, star systems and galaxies throughout the universe, how can we have not yet discovered a form of intelligence equivilent to our own? I find this incredibly odd, and theoretically and by Drakes Equation, there should be numberous of intelligent civilizations existent in our galaxy - and that's just our galaxy! There have to be ones more intelligent than our own. Also, if they do exist, and personally, I believe that at least once during the existence of life on Earth, one form of advanced race should have at least visited and perhaps even observed over the years - and there have been controversies over E.T's visiting. If they do exist and are visting, then they may be the reason why we cannot move on, for whatever given reason)). Again, this is another topic - and my apologies for going off-topic.

Although I prefer not to speculate on the advances of other entities or worlds, I can offer my opinion on the entities of this world. We evolved through a process where the strongest, more viable species survives. If some species do not, that is the nature of our world. As to humanity, we are a primitive and violent species with extraordinarily little understanding of ourselves and our experiences. We will not survive through the millennia without some evolution in our understanding.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…you cannot get something out of nothing, then that means.. that something has always existed - perhaps God (I'm not religeous, I'm athiest, but for the sake of discussion...) - or, perhaps life is infinite, if you refer to my previous posts in this thread and thus, you can never find a beginning because you'll find something that created something that created something that created something, and so forth.

Rather than “something created, and so forth,” why not random convergences? Indeed, all existence may be the end result of a series of random convergences.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

No, if they're random, you cannot predict result; you can't do so, even if you selected to random numbers and added them together - they are random, and the end result of the two added is also random. If it's random, it cannot be detirmined, and thus, there is indetirministic aspects of life.

Once the numbers have been selected, they are no longer random; therefore, the outcome of their union becomes predictable. However, one fact remains--their union arose from a random selection process. At least by this example, what began as random could become predictable.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

To me, I prefer compatabilism; you can have detirministic aspects of the universe, and indetirministic aspects (e.g. free will).

Even our little planet remains bound by universal forces--beyond the will of its centrifugal force--that has placed our galaxy on a collision course with Andromeda--but let us stay on topic. Your continued interest is welcome.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

By my study, the brain only produces two distinct states of consciousness. Multiple consciousnesses beyond those two states have not been proven to my satisfaction.

I agree with this, but I don't think it instantly switches from one to another like a light switch; to me, it seems as if it transitions from one to the other - the process of sleep from wakeful experiences to dreaming appears to be a bridge from one to the other.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although the unconscious may be affected by shared influences upon the conscious mind, the behavior of the unconscious is distinct from that of the conscious mind. The behavior of the unconscious conforms to the reality of mental influence, while the conscious mind conforms to the reality of physical/material experience. The conscious mind takes a literal perspective of reality. Even our fantasies, while conscious, are literal depictions rather than interpretations of influence. To the unconscious, as suggested by dream content, all experience is an interpretation of influence. For example, we may imagine a house in our waking mind as nothing more than a structure where some imagined activity takes place. In the world of dreams, a house is a perspective of some social or mental structure and, as such, it could represent any number of structured social or mental perceptions or routines as experienced by the unconscious.

I agree with this. Unconscious experiences differ to that of conscious experiences, especially throughout dreams; throughout dreams, our perception is perculiar to that of conscious perception; we tend to conform to any given object or character of life (e.g. a person or house) with any given response and perhaps even whilst responding with any given emotion. An example would be, whilst in a dream, one may see a box as a person and may also become emotional over the box that is merely empty; they may even see the box as a threat and may respond fearful to the box. Despite this however, to me, experience appears layered; sometimes dreams are close to reality - our responses and the attributes of the dream are very similar, and are recollection of these dreams are usually higher to average dreams - we tend to remember these dreams easier to others. Other dreams however, dreams during which we may experience being an animal, an ant or perhaps even a box, whilst displaying an illogical emotional response and behaviour - these tend to appear more difficult to remember, and thus, appear "deeper" to others.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

The unconscious, as suggested by the dreaming state of brain function, is a form of consciousness and not a deception in my view. Executing such a deception infers a cognitive process that in itself would invalidate the notion of the unconscious as a deception. There are specific functional distinction between the conscious and unconscious behavior of the brain, which suggests neither to be a deception.

I agree with this, but this is not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the unconscious as an active mental process during our wakeful experiences; during our waking perception, the unconscious if it interacts with us, may be capable of decieving ourselves into believing it is a second form of consciousness produced by the brain.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hypnosis, in my view, isn’t a reduction in the barrier between the conscious and unconscious mind. Hypnosis lowers the inhibitions of the conscious mind and implants faulty data that produces aberrant behaviors. Such behaviors are not the acts of the unconscious but rather the actions of an uninhibited conscious mind--in my opinion.

I welcome your opinion - to me however, hypnosis appears to be an act upon the unconscious mind. Considering the effects of a placebo, a mental process would appear to induce psychological or physiological effects subject to the critical barrier between the two; once the individual becomes aware of the placebo, it no longer works and any attempt to revive the effect wouldn't work due to the individuals knowledge. If a full belief is pertained however, without any knowledge of the placebo, the act can occur subjective to the individual. Hypnosis can do the same effectively through bypassing the barrier between the conscious and unconscious. It would be faulty data; placebo effects can also implant faulty data. However, although it would appear to be the conscious mind preventing such effects from occuring when knowledge arises, the will for such effects to work again still don't work despite wanting them to work, suggesting that perhaps there is a subjective barrier at work preventing these effects from occuring.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Repression is a mental device of the conscious mind as I have stated in prior posts. It is the conscious mind that builds barriers between what it chooses to remember or think about.

It is we that build the barriers? If so, then why can't I experience a placebo again, despite knowing it was a placebo but wanting the effects to function as they once did? It appears that other barriers subjective from my awareness are at work preventing these effects from occuring again.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

In my view, hypnosis is a lowering of inhibitions in the conscious mind rather than a lowering of barriers between it and the unconscious. Schizophrenia, again in my opinion, is the erosion of the barrier between two distinct cognitive processes.

Ah, I understand now. However, if I was unfearful of something to work, despite knowing it was a mere placebo - for example, then why does it no longer work?

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

There is just one floor of awareness (instinctual) where upon cognitive awareness is constructed.

Ah, I understand now.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Instinctual awareness is not of the type suggestive of consciousness. Instinctual awareness arises from the primitive subsystems of the brain and is reactive to the needs of the body. Rather than being thoughtful of our bodily needs, these primitive systems are merely responsive to the critical systems of the body. As a response to our bodily needs, our primitive subsystems initiate those cognitive processes appropriate to its needs. This is a reflexive process rather than an act of cognitive awareness.

Ah, I understand now - thanks!

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

It may remain a cake, but it is not “vanilla” cake. Consciousness may be awareness, but that awareness changes according to how it is constructed. Hence, “vanilla” cake is not the same as “chocolate, strawberries, and vanilla” cake.

Although it changes, it is still awareness. The cake can be featured with additions upon what it was initially formed upon, but it is still a cake.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Is a tree a form of life? What about bacteria and viruses, are they not forms of life? If they are, does consciousness define their existence?

I agree that they are life, but to me, life is experience and is thus, awareness.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Free will may be a bit of an illusion, we are all bound by the will of forces beyond our will to alter.

I agree that free will may be an illusion, but I still believe undetirministic forces of nature can exist. To me, free will derives from a series of options, and we can only choose between these options; we cannot will what we want, but we can will what we choose.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Although I prefer not to speculate on the advances of other entities or worlds, I can offer my opinion of the entities in this world. We evolved through a process where the strongest, more viable species survives. If some species do not, that is the nature of our world. As to humanity, we are a primitive and violent species with extraordinarily little understanding of ourselves and our experiences. We will not survive through the millennia without some evolution in our understanding.

I agree with this - life had evolved through natural selection - and in order to evolve further, we need to greater our understanding of life.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Rather than “something created, and so forth,” why not random convergences? Indeed, all existence may be the end result of a series of random convergences.

I agree with this, and for all other possible convergences, they become alternative to our environment (e.g. other universes).

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Once the numbers have been selected, they are no longer random; therefore, the outcome of their union becomes predictable. However, one fact remains--their union arose from a random selection process. At least by this example, what began as random could become predictable.

You didn't specify as to whether they were to be viewed, but if so, the numbers are no longer random once known. Although they may have began as a random process, a future random process may occur during their expansion.

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Even our little planet remains bound by universal forces--beyond the will of its centrifugal force--that has placed our galaxy on a collision course with Andromeda--but let us stay on topic. Your continued interest is welcome.

Yes, our planet and all other life is bound to the forces from which it had began, but again, a future random process may be possible. Also, I'm not entirely sure what you maen by our galaxy setting on a collision course with Andromeda. And yes, let's stay on topic.

This has been again, a great discussion. And I appreciate what I've learn't from it.

You are correct sir, if you haven't heard of him already, I would refer you to the work of Mr. Sigmund Freud, German Psychoanalyst.

Study his "Id and Ego" theory. You'd be interested in them.

Originally Posted by RosenNoir

You are correct sir, if you haven't heard of him already, I would refer you to the work of Mr. Sigmund Freud, German Psychoanalyst.

Study his "Id and Ego" theory. You'd be interested in them.

Who is correct? And Sigmund Freud was a great psychologist. Although some of what he had discovered was found to be incorrect, some of what he did find was also correct. If you refer to one of my posts, I state that you're not always correct and you're not always wrong!

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Originally Posted by blue_space87

...placebo effects appear to be most significant, depending on the individuals beliefs; if an individual believes in the authoritative without any form of analytical thought, the effect will be accomplished practically immediately. Furthermore, hypnosis also appears to act upon the unconscious effectively; with the disabling of analytical thought, one can be hypnotized and can experience very specific suggestions. However, there is a lack of plausible evidence for hypnosis enabling for physiological effects; they appear to act psychologically - and also appear to develop hallugenic perception for the consciousness.

The function of the brain structures that mediate conscious awareness offers, I believe, and explanation for the effects of placebos and hypnosis. Essentially, the brain structures that mediate physical perception and behavior evolved before those associated with thought and reason. When we are awake, our thoughts, reason, and behaviors are governed by the primitive systems of our brain and central nervous system, which our animal ancestors evolved to navigate physical/material experience. These primitive systems highjack our more evolved cognitive systems as an effect of placebos and hypnosis.

Effectively, the disabling of analytical thought and the suggestibility, which hypnosis and fanatical beliefs seem to cause, is imposed by the subsystems of the brain associated with the perception and mediation of physical experience. These primitive systems could be described as operating instinctively rather than overtly cognitive. The way our conscious cognitive systems appear to interact with these primitive systems is almost akin to a human whose thoughts and behaviors are governed by the information he receives from an ape; i.e., placebos and hypnosis act upon the subsystems from which human consciousness gets its information.

These subsystems do not represent the unconscious mind as I perceive it. The unconscious mind is awareness unbridled by the concerns and perceptions arising from the imports of our brain's primitive systems. Hypnotic and fanatical behaviors can occur when these subsystems import misinformation. Through dreams, we are given an opportunity to evaluate the mental effects of the information our subsystems have imported. What our dreams most often reveal is how much and how deeply our consciousness is influenced by life experience. Your continued interest is welcome.

I have never really thought of dreams in this perspective, and this does appear very plausible. I've always thought of dreams as a way in which we just experience data that we didn't properly experience during our wakeful - conscious - experiences. I agree with you on the misinformation imported by the primitive regeions of the brain. However, this appears to leave the unconscious during the period of time in which the conscious brain is active, as an autonomous system that pertains stability throughout the primitve brain. The conscious mind however, appears to be a barrier to prevent misinformation from affecting the unconscious mind; placebo's however, appear to bypass our analytical thoughts and passing through false information and then requesting for the unconscious mind to act upon this information, thus creating the placebo effect.

One of the most productive threads on this forum. Keep it up guys! :wink:

Originally Posted by DrmDoc

Hello All,

Here's an interesting article on the effecacy of placebos on the unconscious systems of the body:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...re-in-the-mind

Again, this suggests how inputs that address the primitive systems of the brain affect the primitive physical systems of the body.

That was a great article. I have a question for you: do you think it is right for a doctor to prescribe placebo's to a patient, during a situation in which they're nearing death - they cannot be cured of any surgery, or any other form, and a placebo is the last attempt that could save them - would you authorize this?

I've noticed a lot of debate upon as to whether individuals should be given placebo's, and as to whether they should be given them during situations in which death is nearing.

Personally, by all means I would authorize it; if it helps them, makes them feel better, happier and heals them, I would give them a placebo as long as it supported them. I don't really see the problems in a placebo - the problem is exposing placebo's of a medical industry. A placebo that is given at no cost in an effort to save someone, should not be exposed - in my opinion.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

One of the most productive threads on this forum. Keep it up guys! :wink:

Indeed, this has been a great discussion. I hope many have learnt from this thread - I know I have!

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Unconscious experiences differ to that of conscious experiences, especially throughout dreams; throughout dreams, our perception is perculiar to that of conscious perception; we tend to conform to any given object or character of life (e.g. a person or house) with any given response and perhaps even whilst responding with any given emotion. An example would be, whilst in a dream, one may see a box as a person and may also become emotional over the box that is merely empty; they may even see the box as a threat and may respond fearful to the box. Despite this however, to me, experience appears layered; sometimes dreams are close to reality - our responses and the attributes of the dream are very similar, and are recollection of these dreams are usually higher to average dreams - we tend to remember these dreams easier to others. Other dreams however, dreams during which we may experience being an animal, an ant or perhaps even a box, whilst displaying an illogical emotional response and behaviour - these tend to appear more difficult to remember, and thus, appear "deeper" to others.

My perspective of the unconscious, as suggested by the dreaming state of brain function, comes from nearly three decades of study spanning a variety of disciplines. Over the years, I’ve learned that most mainstream and popular ideas about the unconscious and dreams are predicated on misconception, misinterpretation, and misinformation. The greatest source of these three barriers to insight comes from the unstudied, subjective opinion of the dreamer and dream investigators. Any idea we hold about our tendencies in dream content, should be rooted in a clear understanding of the language of dreams based on how the dreaming brain may have evolved that language. All of the notions about the relevancy of dream content and the nature of the unconscious that I have read are either medieval or convoluted with nonsensical theories (e.g., collective unconscious and anima/animus)—in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I'm referring to the unconscious as an active mental process during our wakeful experiences; during our waking perception, the unconscious if it interacts with us, may be capable of decieving ourselves into believing it is a second form of consciousness produced by the brain.

Should the unconscious become active during the onset of conscious brain function for any reason, psychosis will surely follow. The unconscious interprets reality from a perspective that does not conform to the nature of physical/material reality. An active unconscious during the conscious state of brain function would not understand the literal nature of conscious life experience any more than we generally understand our dream experiences after waking. Although some dream experiences are quite pleasant, they are not always congruent with our conscious experiences. Schizophrenia is a perfect example of this incongruent effect.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

It is we that build the barriers? If so, then why can't I experience a placebo again, despite knowing it was a placebo but wanting the effects to function as they once did? It appears that other barriers subjective from my awareness are at work preventing these effects from occuring again.

With a placebo, we are told that it will be effective. It is our conscious cognition of the efficacy of the placebo that exerts influence over those systems of the body that respond. When we are told the placebo’s true nature, it is our conscious cognition of that truth which exerts influence over the changes in our responding systems. Once the genie is released from the bottle, it cannot be put back; i.e., our conscious cognitive knowledge of a truth cannot be undone without manipulating that cognition.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…if I was unfearful of something to work, despite knowing it was a mere placebo - for example, then why does it no longer work?

It is not our unconscious exerting some influence over our responses to placebos, it is the force of our conscious belief that exerts influence.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

Although it changes, it is still awareness. The cake can be featured with additions upon what it was initially formed upon, but it is still a cake.

Does the whole of humanity share the same awareness? Do we all perceive life the exact same way? Isn’t it fair to say that our individual experiences in life shape our awareness and perception of life. Awareness is distinguished by its ingredients and without that distinction we would all be the same person. This is the same distinction between the person we are consciously and the person we are unconsciously.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I agree that they are life, but to me, life is experience and is thus, awareness.

Trees, bacteria, and viruses experience life. Therefore, by your definition, they are aware and thus have consciousness. If a=b and b=c, then a=c; i.e., a valid idea should be relevant to all rather than selectively applicable.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

To me, free will derives from a series of options, and we can only choose between these options; we cannot will what we want, but we can will what we choose.

Is there free will when the choices to made are from a series we did not choose? If “we cannot will what we want,” how free are the choices we make?

Originally Posted by blue_space87

…life had evolved through natural selection - and in order to evolve further, we need to greater our understanding of life.

From my perspective, it isn’t as much about our understanding of life as it is about our understanding of self. We do not know ourselves as well as we potentially could—in my opinion.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I've always thought of dreams as a way in which we just experience data that we didn't properly experience during our wakeful - conscious - experiences.

Dreams are how our unconscious mind interprets the mental effects of the conscious experiences that remain resonant in brain structure at the onset of atonia. The images in our dreams are a critique of our conscious interests, behaviors, and social influences. These images tell us about ourselves and how we have been or could be influenced by our mental and social environment.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

I agree with you on the misinformation imported by the primitive regeions of the brain. However, this appears to leave the unconscious during the period of time in which the conscious brain is active, as an autonomous system that pertains stability throughout the primitve brain.

You misunderstand; it is the primitive subsystems of the brain that maintain the equilibrium of our autonomous systems. These systems are instinctual and neither conscious nor unconscious. In addition, these primitive subsystems initiate and sustain wakeful consciousness as a response to the needs of our bodily systems.

Originally Posted by blue_space87

The conscious mind however, appears to be a barrier to prevent misinformation from affecting the unconscious mind; placebo's however, appear to bypass our analytical thoughts and passing through false information and then requesting for the unconscious mind to act upon this information, thus creating the placebo effect.

Placebos act upon the conscious systems of the body, which directs the conscious responses of the body to placebos. Such responses are not the directive of the unconscious.

Originally Posted by RosenNoir

You are correct sir, if you haven't heard of him already, I would refer you to the work of Mr. Sigmund Freud, German Psychoanalyst.

Study his "Id and Ego" theory. You'd be interested in them.

Although Freud was insightful for his era, he did not have the kind of evidence in brain function that we presently enjoy. Most of his ideas about the nature of mind and consciousness were rooted in his observations of aberrant examples. Ideas based on imperfect example are invariably representative of those imperfection rather than of the mind as a whole. Freud id and ego ideas, as descriptions of conscious and unconscious behaviors, are archaic—in my opinion.

Your continued interest is encouraged.