Thread: Subconcious

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

see personal and social evidence is not proof you have nothing but your own assumption that above our proberly wrond at least i got some evidence backing me. it kind of like this you can agree with the one with evidence or the one without it even if in your mind it subjective. see the evidence might be subjective but that just means it incomplete the evidence point far away from fraudien belife and subconscious crap in this state in unlikely to be proven wrong and if it does change it would be a slight variation. i have warrent for my belife you havent.
[/b]

First of all, "proof" is a relative term. Personal and social evidence is not "proof," it is evidence. The same article you posted about the subconscious doesn't only provide evidence for your (as yet unproven) opening post of "Subconscious: It does not exist," it provides evidence to the contrary because it outlines Other, conflicting, Points of View. I find it interesting how you continuously choose to ignore that and not even realize that the article you posted also provides a counter-argument to your claim. I guess it will sink in, after awhile.
However, like I said, I'm not satisfied with the small amount of evidence (for both sides of the argument) that you posted, so I will be looking around for further information to back my claim, just like I'd suggest you do, because so far you haven't shown anything that confirms your position. And I've seen the pigeon article.
Let me put it to you like this:

The pigeons used only subjective evidence, because they were given no alternative. The only thing a pigeon can use is subjective evidence, because no one is going to be there to tell them "Yo. Pigeon. You're doing it wrong."
This does, at least, display intelligence. The pigeons are thinking for themselves.
You, on the other hand, are not only completely discarding the gift of subjective experience, that ability that allows you to be human and see the world through your eyes (while still using deductive reasoning and credible sources), but you're allowing that disconnection with subjectivity make you so blind that your'e citing one of the various perspectives on the subconcious, covered in one article you found, as fact....even when that same article states the scientiifc community as a whole is more or less at a stalemate, because of rational, scientific conflicts of theory.
Did you even read he entire article, or are you ignoring those factors on purpose, and just going on about the perspective you assume is the correct one?

Ha Ha Ha you all are still caught up in this worlds Bullshit.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

all our behavior is learned i dont want to go into neurbiology and how the brain works because your proberly holding onto one side logic and one side creativity i can go into more detail if you want.[/b]

No, this is the Behaviourists' approach only. There are many other ways that have also explained behaviour

i have never said theirs is no such thing as REM i said that the assumption that we only dream during REM is false i can get the proof if you want. our you actually reading what im saying.
[/b]

In what you wrote, you said something along the lines of 'like REM is bullshit' which is not quite the same thing

Originally Posted by bendstringz

Ha Ha Ha you all are still caught up in this worlds Bullshit.
[/b]

Sooo....are you going to "enlighten us," or should we just sit back and let you keep pretending that empty rhetoric displays intelligence?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Sooo....are you going to "enlighten us," or should we just sit back and let you keep pretending that empty rhetoric displays intelligence?
[/b]

I think the lame grammar of his statement said it all!

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

see personal and social evidence is not proof you have nothing but your own assumption that above our proberly wrond at least i got some evidence backing me. it kind of like this you can agree with the one with evidence or the one without it even if in your mind it subjective. see the evidence might be subjective but that just means it incomplete the evidence point far away from fraudien belife and subconscious crap in this state in unlikely to be proven wrong and if it does change it would be a slight variation. i have warrent for my belife you havent.
[/b]

For starters:


1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077505/

Every day, the people in the study played several hours of the computer game Tetris, which requires directing falling blocks into the correct positions as they reach the bottom of the screen. At night, the amnesiacs didn’t remember playing the game. But, they did describe seeing falling, rotating blocks while they were falling asleep.
A second group of players with normal memories reported seeing the same images.
Therefore, Stickgold’s research team concluded, dreams must come from the types of memory amnesiacs do have, which are called “implicit memories.” These are memories that scientists can measure even when individuals don’t know that they have them.
[/b]

Another type of implicit memory uses “semantic” knowledge, and resides in different parts of the brain, including a region called the neocortex. Semantic knowledge involves general, abstract concepts. Both groups of Tetris players, for example, only described seeing blocks, falling and rotating, and evidently did not see a desk, room, or computer screen, or feel their fingers on the keyboard.
Without help from the hippocampus, new semantic memories are too weak to be intentionally recalled. But they can still affect your behavior - for example, causing you to buy a certain brand of something you saw in an advertisement you don’t remember.
[/b]

2) http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../i_ins.01.html

“BARRETT: Yes, and so what dreams are probably best at is getting unstuck, because they think so outside the box in ways that we would just go, oh, well, that's not the way to solve the problem awake and dreams take all kinds of approaches. “[/b]

3) http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/19...6/sub10196.html

Yale University psychology professor John Kihlstrom, an authority on unconscious cognition, said, "Professor Greenwald's study provides the best evidence for subliminal perception ever produced in 100 years of people trying, invulnerable to the usual methodological criticisms that beset research in this area."[/b]

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_communication

Haven’t had a chance to read through the next one yet, but I’ll post it because I’m familiar with schema theory and, if this article presents it the way I think it does, it should give a lot of insight into unconscious (subconscious) thought process.
5) http://www.kihd.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledg...chemaTheory.htm

6) Link:The Cognitive Unconscious

Haven’t gotten through this one yet, either, but I might as well post it. I’ll get around to reading the rest of it later. But I’ve pulled out a quote you might want to consider.
7) http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:_l0a6...=clnk&cd=48]Link:Unconscious Subjectivity[/URL]

I argue that although all consciousness is subjective in this
sense, not all subjective mental states are conscious since a person may remain unaware
of them.
[/b]

Damn, I didn’t realize how many of these I found. I’ve still got half a page of links. I’m not going to post any more until I get a chance to read over some of them, to make sure they’re all relevant.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Sooo....are you going to "enlighten us," or should we just sit back and let you keep pretending that empty rhetoric displays intelligence?
[/b]

Ok.You spend your life on endless debates,wich no one really knows the answer,because eventualy the idea that you belive in,whatever it may be will eventualy change.Until the source of all life reveals the secrets of our brain,universe and so forth,I thats right I think it is a waste of time to argue,or get offended by others points of views.If someone could explain to me in"Scientific Terms"why we only use a small percentage of our brain,and it makes sense,I will never diss science again.what if we only used a small percentage of our heart,or our skin,wouldnt we die.I belive that access to these areas were taken away from us,and that one day they will be given back.I respect everyones opinion,and accept science as a great tool for mankind to use.But answers to some things are already there,right in front of us.we just have to open up our eyes.

Ok.You spend your life on endless debates,wich no one really knows the answer,because eventualy the idea that you belive in,whatever it may be will eventualy change.Until the source of all life reveals the secrets of our brain,universe and so forth,I thats right I think it is a waste of time to argue,or get offended by others points of views.If someone could explain to me in"Scientific Terms"why we only use a small percentage of our brain,and it makes sense,I will never diss science again.what if we only used a small percentage of our heart,or our skin,wouldnt we die.I belive that access to these areas were taken away from us,and that one day they will be given back.I respect everyones opinion,and accept science as a great tool for mankind to use.But answers to some things are already there,right in front of us.we just have to open up our eyes. [/b]

i would rather be one tenth of oneironaut then somebody that goes around brain dead.

Claim: We use only ten percent of our brains.

Status: False.

Origins: Someone
has taken most of your brain away and you probably didn't even know it. Well,not taken your brain away, exactly, but decided that you don't use it. It's the old myth heard time and again about how people use only ten percent of their brains. While for the people who repeat that myth, it's probably true, the rest of us happily use all of our brains.

The Myth and the Media

That tired Ten-Percent claim pops up all the time. In 1998, national magazine ads for U.S. Satellite Broadcasting showed a drawing of a brain. Under it was the caption, "You only use 11 percent of its potential." Well, they're a little closer than the ten-percent figure, but still off by about 89 percent. In July 1998, ABC television ran promotional spots for The Secret Lives of Men, one of their offerings for the fall season's lineup. The spot featured a full-screen blurb that read, "Men only use ten percent of their brains."

One reason this myth has endured is that it has been adopted by psychics and other paranormal pushers to explain psychic powers. On more than one occasion I've heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don't know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers!" In Reason To Believe: A Practical Guide to Psychic Phenomena, author Michael Clark mentions a man named Craig Karges. Karges charges a lot of money for his "Intuitive Edge" program, designed to develop natural psychic abilities. Clark quotes Karges as saying: "We normally use only 10 to 20 percent of our minds. Think how different your life would be if you could utilize that other 80 to 90 percent known as the subconscious mind."

This was also the reason that Caroline Myss gave for her alleged intuitive powers on a segment of Eye to Eye with Bryant Gumbel, which aired in July of 1998. Myss, who has written books on unleashing "intuitive powers," said that everyone has intuitive gifts, and lamented that we use so little of the mind's potential. To make matters worse, just the week before, on the very same program, correct information was presented about the myth. In a bumper spot between the program and commercials, a quick quiz flashed onscreen: What percentage of the brain is used? The multiple-choice answers ranged from 10 percent to 100 percent. The correct answer appeared, which I was glad to see. But if the producers knew that what one of their interviewees said is clearly and demonstrably inaccurate, why did they let it air? Does the right brain not know what the left brain is doing? Perhaps the Myss interview was a repeat, in which case the producers presumably checked her facts after it aired and felt some responsibility to correct the error in the following week's broadcast. Or possibly the broadcasts aired in sequence and the producers simply did not care and broadcast Myss and her misinformation anyway.

Even Uri Geller, who has made a career out of trying to convince people he can bend metal with his mind, trots out this little gem. This claim appears in his book Uri Geller's Mind-Power Book in the introduction: "Our minds are capable of remarkable, incredible feats, yet we don't use them to their full capacity. In fact, most of us only use about 10 per cent of our brains, if that. The other 90 per cent is full of untapped potential and undiscovered abilities, which means our minds are only operating in a very limited way instead of at full stretch. I believe that we once had full power over our minds. We had to, in order to survive, but as our world has become more sophisticated and complex we have forgotten many of the abilities we once had" (italicized phrases emphasized in original).

Evidence Against the Ten-Percent Myth

The argument that psychic powers come from the unused majority of the brain is based on the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, lack of proof for a position (or simply lack of information) is used to try to support a particular claim. Even if it were true that the vast majority of the human mind is unused (which it clearly is not), that fact in no way implies that any extra capacity could somehow give people paranormal powers. This fallacy pops up all the time in paranormal claims, and is especially prevalent among UFO proponents. For example: Two people see a strange light in the sky. The first, a UFO believer, says, "See there! Can you explain that?" The skeptic replies that no, he can't. The UFO believer is gleeful. "Ha! You don't know what it is, so it must be aliens!" he says, arguing from ignorance.

What follows are two of the reasons that the Ten-Percent story is suspect. (For a much more thorough and detailed analysis of the subject, see Barry Beyerstein's chapter in the 1999 book Mind Myths: Exploring Everyday Mysteries of the Mind.)

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

2) The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the "used" or "necessary" parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the "unused" part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, ". . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not.

Variants of the Ten-Percent Myth

The myth is not simply a static, misunderstood factoid. It has several forms, and this adaptability gives it a shelf life longer than lacquered Spam. In the basic form, the myth claims that years ago a scientist discovered that we indeed did use only ten percent of our brains. Another variant is that only ten percent of the brain had been mapped, and this in turn became misunderstood as ten percent used. A third variant was described earlier by Craig Karges. This view is that the brain is somehow divided neatly into two parts: the conscious mind which is used ten to twenty percent of the time (presumably at capacity); and the subconscious mind, where the remaining eighty to ninety percent of the brain is unused. This description betrays a profound misunderstanding of brain function research.

Part of the reason for the long life of the myth is that if one variant can be proven incorrect, the person who held the belief can simply shift the reason for his belief to another basis, while the belief itself stays intact. So, for example, if a person is shown that PET scans depict activity throughout the entire brain, he can still claim that, well, the ninety percent figure really referred to the subconscious mind, and therefore the Ten-Percent figure is still basically correct.

Regardless of the exact version heard, the myth is spread and repeated, by both the well-meaning and the deliberately deceptive. The belief that remains, then, is what Robert J. Samuelson termed a "psycho-fact, [a] belief that, though not supported by hard evidence, is taken as real because its constant repetition changes the way we experience life." People who don't know any better will repeat it over and over, until, like the admonition against swimming right after you eat, the claim is widely believed. ("Triumph of the Psycho-Fact," Newsweek, 9 May 1994.)

The origins of the myth are not at all clear. Beyerstein, of the Brain Behaviour Laboratory at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has traced it back to at least the early part of the century. A 1998 column in New Scientist magazine also suggested various roots, including Albert Einstein and Dale Carnegie ("Brain Drain"). It likely has a number of sources, principally misunderstood or misinterpreted legitimate scientific findings as well as self-help gurus.

The most powerful lure of the myth is probably the idea that we might develop psychic abilities, or at least gain a leg up on the competition by improving our memory or concentration. All this is available for the asking, the ads say, if we just tapped into our most incredible of organs, the brain. It is past time to put this myth to rest, although if it has survived at least a century so far, it will surely live on into the new millennium. Perhaps the best way to combat this chestnut is to reply to the speaker, when the myth is mentioned, "Oh? What part don't you use?"

Acknowledgments:

I am indebted to Dr. Barry Beyerstein for providing research help and suggestions. [/b]

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
what a surpise what you believe is a myth.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

i would rather be one tenth of oneironaut then somebody that goes around brain dead.
[/b]

Haha. Thanks.

Ok.You spend your life on endless debates,wich no one really knows the answer,because eventualy the idea that you belive in,whatever it may be will eventualy change.Until the source of all life reveals the secrets of our brain,universe and so forth,I thats right I think it is a waste of time to argue,or get offended by others points of views.If someone could explain to me in"Scientific Terms"why we only use a small percentage of our brain,and it makes sense,I will never diss science again.what if we only used a small percentage of our heart,or our skin,wouldnt we die.I belive that access to these areas were taken away from us,and that one day they will be given back.I respect everyones opinion,and accept science as a great tool for mankind to use.But answers to some things are already there,right in front of us.we just have to open up our eyes.
[/b]

To me, ignorance is not always bliss.
There are many subjects about which I make the same argument you just did - God, being one of them (hence, my agnosticism) but to go through life just oblivious to present scientific knowledge, simply because you believe its “wrong,” or you assume the paradigm is going to change (even though they often do), is dangerously ignorant.
Point and counter-pointing each other’s opinions doesn’t always means “debating endlessly” or “getting offended by others’ points of view.” That’s not how adults (should) debate. If you’re self-centered enough to value your own (unfounded?) beliefs, then you should always be open to hearing contradictory information, if credible, especially on complex areas like psychology. (I argue in favor of a lot of metaphysical shit, so I disgree with a lot of "accepted" science too. Doesn't mean I should just declare that "I'm right and science is wrong, because I have some opposing views.") Beliefs should be open to evolve, just like knowledge does. The most important part of “opening your eyes” is being able to see the fact that your beliefs are not infallible. That’s whole meaning behind the metaphor.

You should take your own advice and always try to find the logic in your beliefs. That includes listening to other opinions (that you may not want to hear) and trying to understand them.

[quote]

Oh come on... science is well aware that theories are likely to be disproven, and it actively deals with it. It is science the proves many of these things are wrong - take Galileo for example. It was his scientific method which proved that the earth revolved around the sun, and that Jupiter had its own moons. Science is not constantly being disproven, theories are. Science is a method of attaining knowledge, and shouldn't be confused with the theories it establishes.


Back on the subject of the subconscious, I think much of the confusion is because of the ambiguity in the term 'sub-conscious' itself. The term 'consciousness' is used to mean many different things in everyday life: does it mean awareness of experience, the ability to form a representation of the self, or simply not being asleep?

Consciousness can be divided into many phenonema:

The ability to recognise environmetal stimuli in a sentient way

The focus of attention

Deliberate control of behaviour

Self - awareness

An ability to intergrate and access information


There are a few more phenonema, but these are the most readily seen examples. So, what about the question "is there a sub-concsious phenonemon?" There are two interpretations of this question:

"Is there a state of thinking in humans in which no consciousness is displayed?"

or

"Is there a state of consciousness which we are not immediately aware of?"


To the first question I think the answer is clearly 'no'. The second question is undoubtably 'yes'. There are cognitive processes that take place which are not in the immidiate focus of our attention. Probably the most often cited example of this are bodily functions that take place as part of homeostasis. We are aware of our heart beating - we can feel it and know that it is happening, but we are not aware of the cognitive processes which ensure it. For example, it is generally impossible for us to simply will our hearts to stop beating.

The question that is raised from this is to what extent can these cognitive processes affect our everyday life without our being actively aware of them? Does the Freudian concept of 'sub-conscious' influence work? I think that it is entirely plausible - from a naturalistic point of view, it does not make sense for an organism to constantly be aware of every single operation and cognitive process of the brain. If this were the case, the organism would be overwhelmed with informtion, and unable to perform simple tasks like hunt for food. If the majority of these processes are carried out beyond the reaches of awareness, then the organism can focus on much more important tasks.

Don't know if that makes any sense, I kind of got a bit lost when reading through the thread.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

i would rather be one tenth of oneironaut then somebody that goes around brain dead.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
what a surpise what you believe is a myth.
[/b]

thnk you for setting me straight.

Originally Posted by bendstringz

faith in science is kinda shaky,considering science is constantly being disproven,such as the world is flat.
[/b]

I absolutely refuse to get into the topic over whether or not their is a subconscious... but I will touch this one:

Check out Mappa Mundi from medieval periods and you will see that, in fact, no one ever really believed the Earth was flat. They actually believed the Earth was quite spherical. The laymans and, roughly labelled, the proletariat, believed the Earth was flat probably because humans are naturally selfish beings who can not think outside of their own heads. Thusly, what we perceive (a roughly flat terrain) must be the absolute truth and is reflected in... actually, I can not think of any literary references to the Earth being flat as a fact of nature. Even Roman literary authors such as Julius Caesar and Pliny took notes on the spherical shape of the Earth - they relate how ships would gradually get smaller and eventually disappear over the horizon.

As for the subconcious.............

~

Originally Posted by O

I absolutely refuse to get into the topic over whether or not their is a subconscious... but I will touch this one:

As for the subconcious.............~[/b]

Those are pretty strong words O'nus but I respectfully ask that you do put forth your opinion. For it seems becomingagodo will read something and defend it till it's death.
I know you are holding out on us.

In all seriousness. Please give us the pleasure of your thoughts . No arguments needed.

I think there is much grey matter in trying to distinguish exactly between the nonconscious and the subconscious -- partly because they interact with each other, and partly because, as is so often the case, psychologists are unable to agree on the definitions.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

I think the lame grammar of his statement said it all!
[/b]

Speaking of which:
the Title --> Subconcious, their is none

FYI subconscious and there. maybe too, if you wanted to make a complete sentence you would add a period.

its a stupid argument
even scientists dont know how our minds/brains truly work
we udnerstand 15%
the rest is what we categorize as our subconcious mind
as we begin to udnerstand it and become able to manipulate it maybe it will become part of our concious mind
when I use auto-suggestion
my subconcious mind picks it up

too often people try to be right, you seek to deal in abolsutes
you bleeive that you know
no, the you do not know, and neither do I,
the difference = I accept that I do not know and I seek to understand

"True knowledge lies in knwoing you know nothing"
I dont know if thats the exact quote.
You seek to explain things that the greatest scientists dont understand
the same stands for your atheism
or even for other peoples theism
be content knwoing that you do not know but you will seek to know

Imran

its a stupid argument
even scientists dont know how our minds/brains truly work
we udnerstand 15%
the rest is what we categorize as our subconcious mind

Actually we know alot about how the brain works from neurological studies and scanning technology that has improve immensily this year. The only thing that has not be explained properly is savant syndrome and where does memory go long term and short term.

too often people try to be right, you seek to deal in abolsutes
you bleeive that you know
no, the you do not know, and neither do I,
the difference = I accept that I do not know and I seek to understand

What the difference between knowing something and understaning something. Also this topic was dealing in science not absolute if their evidence for a claim it does not get thrown away if their is no evidence then it does. Plus science is understanding not making assumption like their is no god or their is a god e.t.c.

P.S. has onus left this forum

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

its a stupid argument
even scientists dont know how our minds/brains truly work
we udnerstand 15%
the rest is what we categorize as our subconcious mind

Actually we know alot about how the brain works from neurological studies and scanning technology that has improve immensily this year. The only thing that has not be explained properly is savant syndrome and where does memory go long term and short term.

too often people try to be right, you seek to deal in abolsutes
you bleeive that you know
no, the you do not know, and neither do I,
the difference = I accept that I do not know and I seek to understand

What the difference between knowing something and understaning something. Also this topic was dealing in science not absolute if their evidence for a claim it does not get thrown away if their is no evidence then it does. Plus science is understanding not making assumption like their is no god or their is a god e.t.c.

P.S. has onus left this forum
[/b]

I have not left the forum.

Propounding that there "is no subconscious" or "unconscious" is a gross statement that is blatantly asking for an opposition.

Almost every psychologist and philosopher I have met will agree upon the basis that your consciousness, or "ego", can not concentrate on all of the external stimuli it is receiving all the time. You will have to process somethings on an subconsious level and even the most essential functioning of the autonomic nervous system have absolutely no autonomic control. Therefore, we can not empirically say that there is "no subconscious" because there are sub sets of bodily functions which we cannot control and we can also not control all things at once or think of all things at once.

Carl Jung described the unconscious in the similie of a lighthouse. Your consciousness, ego, is the light from the house. It can only focus upon certain areas at a time however that does not mean that all of the other external stimuli is being blocked out - ships can still crash into you.

Consider that you will find yourself often suddenly jerking your head to the side, almost reflexivy, to see someone staring at you, a grocery cart about to hit you, a car, an arrow, maybe even my fist. This is the acting nature of the unconscious which will be aware of your surroundings while you focus upon another area.

However, your argument does bring up a certain concept that is difficult for many to understand. The fact that this unconscious I described above has integral features and interaction with the conscious should insinutate that it is then in fact part of the consciousness co-operating with it in all daily activities, thoughts, etc. Therefore, you could not call it an unconcious part of the mind since it is always active with the mind.

Hence, becomingagodo, you have to be careful on how you postualte these theories for they can be really tricky and the semantics can be compeletly misunderstood. I think I understand what you are saying here.

I hope I have been enlightening.
~

Thank you O'nus.

I am in the process of reading one of Jung's book now. "The undiscovered self"
I must say most of it is very difficult to follow, for me.
But he does touch on the basis of dreams, subconscious and ego's.
Great stuff

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Thank you O'nus.

I am in the process of reading one of Jung's book now. "The undiscovered self"
I must say most of it is very difficult to follow, for me.
But he does touch on the basis of dreams, subconscious and ego's.
Great stuff
[/b]

I also suggest reading "Man and His Symbols". He claims it is something that the public can be entertained with so maybe you will feel more comfortable with it. Although, I can see why you may have chosen the Undiscovered Self - I too chose to read it because it is a relatively small book.

~