Thread: multiple consciousnesses?

is it possible for a single brain to have two or more consciousnesses in it?

could schizophrenics and the like actually have different people in their head?

you seem to have come across a debate that has been raging for a long time,
what is our conscious?
is it part of the brain? or is it seperate?
we have very little understanding of what it is exactly. so your theory about schizophrenics could be right, maybe the person has two competing consciousnesses (sp?)

I find it highly unlikely that the brain and mind is separate, however, I find it likely that multiple personalities might occur when data interpretation somehow conflicts with eachother. But this is of course wild speculation.

Absolutely


Take a look at the work of Gurdjieff, as well as Ouspensky, and also Charles Tart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Gurdjieff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.D._Ouspensky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart


Gurdjieff based much of his work on the belief that we have many 'I's' that are always vying for control. He called this the fourth way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Way

We tend to think of the ego, or personality as being one thing, but it's not. Gurdjieff encouraged people to become watchers, and when you do you realise that we are made up of many little egos.

The phenomena here is that each I when it takes precedence thinks it is 'king' and takes over temporarily, but then along comes another I and takes the position of head ball player. This gives us the feeling of multitudes of personality, and this is the same for everybody, not someone with psychological illnesses.

We've have all had the feeling of an aspect of ourselves taking over. A good example of this is the angry I, which does or says things the compassionate I will regret later.
It's interesting to see how particular emotions attach themselves to particular I's.

This is another reason people change their minds all the time!

Gurdjieff suggested that there was a 'higher I', some would call this our superior self, holy self, enlightened self. But it's the I that knows and acts best. Gurdjieff encouraged people to strengthen this I and work to get all the other little I's under it's dominion so they couldn't wreak havoc in our lives.

This has similarities with many religious and spiritual practices and training.

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/tart/soc12.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1236/manyis3.html

Originally Posted by Selene

Gurdjieff suggested that there was a 'higher I', some would call this our superior self, holy self, enlightened self. But it's the I that knows and acts best. Gurdjieff encouraged people to strengthen this I and work to get all the other little I's under it's dominion so they couldn't wreak havoc in our lives.

Yeahbut...

Isn't Gurjieff a spiritualist? Wouldn't we expect him to think this way?

Dennett, of course (Consciousness Explained et al) dismisses the notion of homunculi in the brain and, if you take his 'multiple drafts' account of consciousness seriously (as I do, to a certain extent) then the only multiple personalities possible would be those that involve serious emotional/cranial pathologies and get written up as case studies (many faces of Eve and so on).

Wasn't it Ryle who disparagingly referred to the multiple homunculi notion as "The ghost in the machine"?

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Gurdjieff suggested that there was a 'higher I', some would call this our superior self, holy self, enlightened self. But it's the I that knows and acts best. Gurdjieff encouraged people to strengthen this I and work to get all the other little I's under it's dominion so they couldn't wreak havoc in our lives.

Yeahbut...

Isn't Gurjieff a spiritualist? Wouldn't we expect him to think this way?

Dennett, of course (Consciousness Explained et al) dismisses the notion of homunculi in the brain and, if you take his 'multiple drafts' account of consciousness seriously (as I do, to a certain extent) then the only multiple personalities possible would be those that involve serious emotional/cranial pathologies and get written up as case studies (many faces of Eve and so on).

Wasn't it Ryle who disparagingly referred to the multiple homunculi notion as "The ghost in the machine"?

That's true he was spiritual, which unfortunbately puts some people off, but i do think he had a point.

Just on my own observations and analysis of myself i discover that this idea to be true, and i have had successes in subduing some of my I's with this approach, (as well as using Goetia, but i won't go into that or else you will all probably start quacking at me!) which has benefited me and my life greatly.

I will have to have a closer look at Dennett as i'm not greatly familiar with his work.

I'm very much a person who takes on board that which makes sense and keep an open mind on everything else (but not too open of course so my brain falls out!)
And also i will give most things a try, because basically in practical applications, it's not necessarily which theory is 'right' and which is 'wrong' it all boils down to what works and what doesn't, and i suppose that which works is different for everyone.

Originally Posted by medlakeguy

is it possible for a single brain to have two or more consciousnesses in it?

could schizophrenics and the like actually have different people in their head?

Assuming the conscious construct is the outcome of development in the prior-development stage, and/or the conscious awareness, it's probably possible, especially when factoring in self-actualization effects.

There's also evidence that the conscious mind isn't the true self, only a functional facade of the subconscious. The collective unconscious, the social psyche, even the collective conscious, all can effect the conscious function.

Although it's not certain what effect a double (or more) conscious might have on the subconscious mind. Perhaps the presence of multiple consciousnesses is merely a fault in the subconscious rational?

As for different people, it depends on your definition of "people." What makes a person? Is it their actions? Their conscious thoughts? If it is their subconscious, how do we tell? It's not easy to tell, I suppose, but it does bring up another question: if a schizophrenic is shown to be more than one person, do we tax them more than once? :P

consciousness always confused me, it just seems like there's something bigger behind it

the ability of a cluster of cells act as a single entity and make decisions (or at least be aware of what those decisions are) shouldn't happen given our current knowledge of how the universe works. its not just a question of philosophy, its a question of physics

why isn't consciousness more researched?

i don't think its beyond our understanding...

Originally Posted by medlakeguy

consciousness always confused me, it just seems like there's something bigger behind it

The subconscious.

Originally Posted by medlakeguy

the ability of a cluster of cells act as a single entity and make decisions (or at least be aware of what those decisions are) shouldn't happen given our current knowledge of how the universe works. its not just a question of philosophy, its a question of physics

The long standing question of switching...

If I take 100 billion multi-directional switches and lump them together, does it turn into a conscious mind? So if the brain is a huge lump of multi-directional switches, how does it form a consciousness? :?

Originally Posted by medlakeguy

why isn't consciousness more researched?

It is. It's just a difficult subject to study.

Originally Posted by medlakeguy

i don't think its beyond our understanding...

Depends on if it's actually possible to understand more than our understanding. :P

Originally Posted by Selene

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Gurdjieff suggested that there was a 'higher I', some would call this our superior self, holy self, enlightened self. But it's the I that knows and acts best. Gurdjieff encouraged people to strengthen this I and work to get all the other little I's under it's dominion so they couldn't wreak havoc in our lives.

Yeahbut...

Isn't Gurjieff a spiritualist? Wouldn't we expect him to think this way?

Dennett, of course (Consciousness Explained et al) dismisses the notion of homunculi in the brain and, if you take his 'multiple drafts' account of consciousness seriously (as I do, to a certain extent) then the only multiple personalities possible would be those that involve serious emotional/cranial pathologies and get written up as case studies (many faces of Eve and so on).

Wasn't it Ryle who disparagingly referred to the multiple homunculi notion as "The ghost in the machine"?

That's true he was spiritual, which unfortunbately puts some people off, but i do think he had a point.

Just on my own observations and analysis of myself i discover that this idea to be true, and i have had successes in subduing some of my I's with this approach, (as well as using Goetia, but i won't go into that or else you will all probably start quacking at me!) which has benefited me and my life greatly.

I will have to have a closer look at Dennett as i'm not greatly familiar with his work.

I'm very much a person who takes on board that which makes sense and keep an open mind on everything else (but not too open of course so my brain falls out!)
And also i will give most things a try, because basically in practical applications, it's not necessarily which theory is 'right' and which is 'wrong' it all boils down to what works and what doesn't, and i suppose that which works is different for everyone.

I too have observed these sensations within myself.

By subduing certain I's from surfacing within the conscious mind(do you mean eliminating them altogether or surpressing?), you are denying the subconscious psyche from playing its part. The two are of one. By doing so, you are limiting your conscious self.

As long as you react to the I's within your conscience ie: Right and Wrong, then you are being self aware or selfconscious.

If you consider the meditation of Hinduism for example, they believe that there are at least five different states of mind-: 1.Ksipta- Agitated mind, unable to think, listen or remain quiet, jumping from one thought to the next. 2.Mudha- No information seems to reach the brain, absentmindedness. 3.Viksipta- A higher state of mind that recieves information that cannot be or is not able to be processed, one thought to another in a confused inner speech. 4.Ekagra- A calm mind, but aware. The person is able to be focused and pay attention and 5.Nirodha- Not disturbed by erratic thoughts and is completely focused upon what they are doing.

The aim of recognising these different states of minds, is to eliminate the need to surpress I's and to destroy primal ignorance. Thus creating the realization of the essential nature of self. Consciousness. (I live therefore I am)

I believe that all forms of meditation may unlock the deeper meanings of consciousness, but remember my truth is not your truth!

Originally Posted by 1C3

Originally Posted by Selene

Originally Posted by sunshinewarrio

Originally Posted by Selene

Gurdjieff suggested that there was a 'higher I', some would call this our superior self, holy self, enlightened self. But it's the I that knows and acts best. Gurdjieff encouraged people to strengthen this I and work to get all the other little I's under it's dominion so they couldn't wreak havoc in our lives.

Yeahbut...

Isn't Gurjieff a spiritualist? Wouldn't we expect him to think this way?

Dennett, of course (Consciousness Explained et al) dismisses the notion of homunculi in the brain and, if you take his 'multiple drafts' account of consciousness seriously (as I do, to a certain extent) then the only multiple personalities possible would be those that involve serious emotional/cranial pathologies and get written up as case studies (many faces of Eve and so on).

Wasn't it Ryle who disparagingly referred to the multiple homunculi notion as "The ghost in the machine"?

That's true he was spiritual, which unfortunbately puts some people off, but i do think he had a point.

Just on my own observations and analysis of myself i discover that this idea to be true, and i have had successes in subduing some of my I's with this approach, (as well as using Goetia, but i won't go into that or else you will all probably start quacking at me!) which has benefited me and my life greatly.

I will have to have a closer look at Dennett as i'm not greatly familiar with his work.

I'm very much a person who takes on board that which makes sense and keep an open mind on everything else (but not too open of course so my brain falls out!)
And also i will give most things a try, because basically in practical applications, it's not necessarily which theory is 'right' and which is 'wrong' it all boils down to what works and what doesn't, and i suppose that which works is different for everyone.

I too have observed these sensations within myself.

By subduing certain I's from surfacing within the conscious mind(do you mean eliminating them altogether or surpressing?), you are denying the subconscious psyche from playing its part. The two are of one. By doing so, you are limiting your conscious self.

As long as you react to the I's within your conscience ie: Right and Wrong, then you are being self aware or selfconscious.

If you consider the meditation of Hinduism for example, they believe that there are at least five different states of mind-: 1.Ksipta- Agitated mind, unable to think, listen or remain quiet, jumping from one thought to the next. 2.Mudha- No information seems to reach the brain, absentmindedness. 3.Viksipta- A higher state of mind that recieves information that cannot be or is not able to be processed, one thought to another in a confused inner speech. 4.Ekagra- A calm mind, but aware. The person is able to be focused and pay attention and 5.Nirodha- Not disturbed by erratic thoughts and is completely focused upon what they are doing.

The aim of recognising these different states of minds, is to eliminate the need to surpress I's and to destroy primal ignorance. Thus creating the realization of the essential nature of self. Consciousness. (I live therefore I am)

I believe that all forms of meditation may unlock the deeper meanings of consciousness, but remember my truth is not your truth!

Cognitive awareness tends to subdue particular I's. They just don't get center stage anymore.
I basically ask myself what it is i want from life and what i want to give and where i want to be going, and so try and steer things in that direction.
Some of the I's have just developed as off shoots in the past which probably should have been 'nipped in the bud'.
I don't think any of these multiple I's are the real self.

If you imagine a room full of people. There are always some who are loudest and boisterous and like to get noticed, although they usually have little of worth to say. Often the most quietest in the group is the most interesting and often the more authentic, because they don't feel the need to 'big-up' themselves.

So identifying all these characters in your room and meditation, most definitely a useful tool in stilling the crowd and bustle, is good practice.