Subconcious

Quote:

---

Pic of atoms:
1 2 3 4 [/b]

---

these are computer images their not real atom.

Quote:

---

> Protons are unlikely ever to be seen, I would guess, in the sense of
> images being created by a focusable relatively non-disruptive beam.

I've 'seen' single protons, electrons and antiprotons, if you give me
some latitude with the word 'seen'. My Ph.D. project was to 'catch' a
single antiproton in a Penning trap in a high magnetic field and
measure its frequency of oscillation in that field, given by f=eB/(2
\pi m) where e/m is the charge to mass ratio of the antiproton. We then
would put a single proton in the field and compare its frequency to
the antiproton's frequency. Standard theories of physics assume that
the charge-to-mass ratios should be equal (up to the sign). This
measurement therefore was a test of one of the basic theorems of
particle physics known as the CPT theorem. We measured the two
particles to have the same charge-to-mass ratios to 1 part in one
billion (that's a US billion, 10^9). The student who followed me added
an extra digit. We now know that the two particles have the same
charge-to-mass ratios at one part in 10^10.
Now back to the question at hand. The way we observed the particles
was to excite them with radio waves (The cyclotron frequency eB/(2 \pi
m) ) was about 90 MHz) and 'watch' or 'listen' to them. (We liked to
say 'listen' because we would take the 90 MHz frequency and mix it
down to less than one kHz much as you would in an FM radio receiver.)
The particles would radiate their excess electromagnetic energy as
their kinetic energy returned back to the thermal level. We could see
them as they emitted this energy and tell you where in the trap
holding them in the magnetic field they were located from this
frequency. While we needed a 'magnifying glass' to see them, there is no
doubt we were 'seeing' or 'listening to' single subatomic particles.
The space they occupied while we listened to them was much
less than one wavelength of the radiation so that we could not focus
it to see them. It turns out that we could use properties of special
relativity to determine how much energy they had. Loosely speaking, a
particle's mass increases as its energy increases. Therefore, as its
energy increases, its frequency in the field (its cyclotron frequency)
decreases. (For those who don't like the term relativistic mass
increase, we can just say that the cyclotron frequency is really eB/(m
\gamma).) Therefore by measuring the frequency shift, we could
determine the energy and thus the radius of the antiproton's orbit.
Normally, this would be a tiny effect, but due to the extreme
precision of our experiment, we thought of 100 eV of kinetic energy
(\Beta = 10^-7) as extremely relativistic. That made a fractional
shift in the frequency of 10^-7 which we needed to understand and
eliminate or correct for if we wanted an accuracy of 10^-9 or 10^-10.

For more information on this experiment, you can find pdf files of
the journal articles at http://hussle.harvard.edu/~gabriels/. A
Scientific American article was also published by Prof. Gabrielse (my
thesis advisor) about five years ago, but I don't have the reference
with me.[/b]

---

if you read this they say all you can do is trap them in a magnetic field and measure it and see where radiation is given off. they our just picture first a atom would be black second it would be very hard to bouce a photon of a eletron and capture let alone thousand you would need to capture a single atom and the fact that one photon hitting it or eletron would massively change and basically send the atom flying at the speed of light to the other side of room.

Quote:

---

Also, classical conditioning is NOT the root of all our behavior. It is one form of learning, there are others[/b]

---

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.

Quote:

---

To say there is no such thing as REM and the subconscious is blatantly wrong. REM is a state of sleep, 100% irrefutable scientific fact[/b]

---

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.

Quote:

---

There is no 'prove'. There are many theories on the reason behind our behaviour.[/b]

---

ok say we got a theory that says dreams are caused by eating cheese now to prove it wrong or correct you look at how the brain works then cheese then you do a experiment now when you find that the model theory of cheese has no proof or justification you abadon that theory. if you hold onto the assumption then your an idiot a good example is quantum physics the opposite to what we believe about nature is true so we abadon classical physics. and yes i do believe in REM it has been measured in brain during sleep cycle it more todo with your brain not having a special inhibitor in your brain that changes the potential differences of your brain so it can do something your visual part of your brain stays the same during this where new research which was posted on new sceintist website says that dream come from visual part of brain and that part stay constant throught sleep so we dream all night.

I am not sure I am following you. What are you defending against and who?
And in regards to No subconscious??? Have I missed something?

Quote:

---

I am not sure I am following you. What are you defending against and who?
And in regards to No subconscious??? Have I missed something? [/b]

---

i am saying there no subconscious mind look in subconscious topic in lucid aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

i am saying there no subconscious mind look in subconscious topic in lucid aid.
[/b]

---

I think many people presume that because there is so much talk about a subconscious mind that it is taken it a literal sense.
Of coarse there is no actual physical subconscious mind. But I can argue that our brain and all the millions of functions that it performs is subcategorized into the subconscious.
I don't really think you could convince me otherwise.
Unless you have come up with something very new. :)

I read they were made by Atomic Force Microscopy .

I have absolutely no idea what the original post had to do with the title and/or REM, but if the subconscious didn't exist (to name only one counter-argument) there would be no such thing as multiple personality "disorder".

Subconcious is a vague and 'human' term. It does exist aslong as we call certain processes that we do not (fully) control in our mind 'subconcious'.

It is just a word really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

It does exist aslong as we call certain processes that we do not (fully) control in our mind 'subconcious'.
[/b]

---

This is where my confusion begins. Becomingagodo, are you implying that we have 100% conscious awareness of every operative brain function, at all times? If you're not, I'm wondering if you're misinterpretting the concept of the word "subconscious." The subconscious mind (most popularly attributed to the mental processes we simply are not consciously aware of, the psychological ones being the most relative to this discussion) is evidenced in everyone, everyday. Where's the logic in arguing that much? As of yet, I don't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is where my confusion begins. Becomingagodo, are you implying that we have 100% conscious awareness of every operative brain function, at all times?[/b]

---

No, I am saying that we do not have 100% concious awereness and 'power' over our brain, and that we call those areas 'subconcious'.

Quote:

---

If you're not, I'm wondering if you're misinterpretting the concept of the word "subconscious." The subconscious mind (most popularly attributed to the mental processes we simply are not consciously aware of, the psychological ones being the most relative to this discussion) is evidenced in everyone, everyday. Where's the logic in arguing that much? As of yet, I don't see it.
[/b]

---

What don't you get? Or I get? There is a think that can be called subconcious. Like then I an attracked to a girl, yet not to a dude. I don't actually 'think' hey, a girl, I should find that hot. I think 'gawdDAMN that's some hot boobs right there'.

Or something.

There is a subconcious, but it might depend on definition, that is what I am saying.

Neuro, I was talking to becomingagodo. :wink:

I agree with you, and I just quoted you because your post pretty much highlighted the basis for my post to him.

:laughhard: Haha haa That's is funny. You guys kill me. I saw that coming!
Or should I say, I unconsciosly saw that coming?! :meditate:

Quote:

---

This atomic force microscope image by German physicist Franz Giessibl shows dozens of silicon atoms. Scientists have debated whether the light and dark crescents - or wing-shaped features seen on the atoms represent orbitals - the paths of electrons orbiting the atoms. [/b]

---

scientist themselves dont know what their looking at.

Quote:

---

I have absolutely no idea what the original post had to do with the title and/or REM, but if the subconscious didn't exist (to name only one counter-argument) there would be no such thing as multiple personality "disorder".[/b]

---

this is caused by delusion nothing more.

Quote:

---

This is where my confusion begins. Becomingagodo, are you implying that we have 100% conscious awareness of every operative brain function, at all times? If you're not, I'm wondering if you're misinterpretting the concept of the word "subconscious."[/b]

---

their is of course unconcious action like heart and stuff.

Quote:

---

The subconscious mind (most popularly attributed to the mental processes we simply are not consciously aware of, the psychological ones being the most relative to this discussion) is evidenced in everyone, everyday. Where's the logic in arguing that much? As of yet, I don't see it.[/b]

---

i am arguing against their basically a second person in your head doing function you cant understand. it like when the first person post was saying talk to your subconscious mind and tell it you will have a lucid dream. i trying to say you should like this their only a conscious mind i.e, you and second classical condition learned behavior without no consciousness what so ever and then thing you dont have control of like heartbeat yes i know about magician. i arguing their is no second person in your head their only you. read the original first post in lucid aid the person say we got another person or imply it by saying talk to your subconsious. also your behavior is not determined by it it learn though classical conditioning.

I ask you this.
When you are lucid dreaming , meaning you are in your conscious mind during a dream ..correct? What is controlling the action of the dream? What is playing out the seen as you consciously interact with it?
Is your consciousness in two different places?
Or could it be that the subconscious is interacting with your conscious?

I think you should do some research on the subconscious rather than pin all your arguments off this one reference.

Quote:

---

I ask you this.
When you are lucid dreaming , meaning you are in your conscious mind during a dream ..correct? What is controlling the action of the dream? What is playing out the seen as you consciously interact with it?
Is your consciousness in two different places?
Or could it be that the subconscious is interacting with your conscious?

I think you should do some research on the subconscious rather than pin all your arguments off this one reference. [/b]

---

visual imagination that what it is see your mind become unconscious sleep and then you get visual spasm from your part of your brain called visual cortex. see your visual cortext become very active during sleep this produces dreams and good case would be woman who had a very vivid dream then loss the abillity for her visual cortex to work when sleeping so she had no dream. see dream are just visual cortex or visual part of your brain which randomly get activated i got this from newscience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

visual imagination that what it is see your mind become unconscious sleep and then you get visual spasm from your part of your brain called visual cortex. see your visual cortext become very active during sleep this produces dreams and good case would be woman who had a very vivid dream then loss the abillity for her visual cortex to work when sleeping so she had no dream. see dream are just visual cortex or visual part of your brain which randomly get activated i got this from newscience.
[/b]

---

It is obviously more than just visual. As you described, imagination and spasms.
What are these derived from?
That does not directly answer the question, does it? Activated by........Conscious or subconscious?

Quote:

---

It is obviously more than just visual. As you described, imagination and spasms.
What are these derived from?
That does not directly answer the question, does it? Activated by........Conscious or subconscious?[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Brain-imaging reports generally support Solms' theory that dreams derive from a frontal-brain motivation system, Braun notes (SN: 1/17/98, p. 44). However, a frontal-brain area considered pivotal for self-monitoring and abstract thought naps throughout sleep. Braun considers this finding to clash with the Freudian notion of dreams as hotbeds of disguised meaning.[/b]

---

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010811/bob12.asp see the main bulk of evidence is for the dreams coming from your visual primitive areas not from fraudien belife like subconsious which has no proof. you can go with the evidenece or your own belife.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Actually, no. Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.[/b]

---

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html seriously no one ever believe this learn more about science before you can critizie it. faith in religion is even more shaky because science itself is form by experimental proof constant arguing among geniuses and finally abadoment of ideas that need faith which is unscientific. and if you want to bring that up religion believed that the earth is the centre of the universe and the sun went aroung it. how can you disprove science anyway because then the thing what disprove it will become science like quantum mechanics.

SUBconscious. Like a sub forum. An attribute of the conscious brain activity as a whole.
Existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond consciousness: the subconscious self. Compare preconscious, unconscious.
Imperfectly or not wholly conscious: subconscious motivations. The totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unrepeatable mental activities.
Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious: subconscious perceptions.
The part of the mind below the level of conscious perception.

Scientist psychologist and the like all are always venturing into new regions of the brain. It is the most complex thing we know (or don't know) For many of the regions that are classified above the term subconscious was derived to make explanation of some mechanisms of the brain more comprehensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

this is caused by delusion nothing more.
[/b]

---

I’d like to see a solid basis for this “fact,” whenever you get a chance. As of now, the side of the criticism that points to MPD being simply delusion seems, to me, to be the minority.
If what you posted is a fact, you should have no problem with presenting sufficient evidence to suspend all disbelief.

Quote:

---

see the main bulk of evidence is for the dreams coming from your visual primitive areas not from fraudien belife like subconsious which has no proof. you can go with the evidenece or your own belife.[/b]

---

Ok. Now we’re getting somewhere. According to this post, you are misinterpreting the general use of the word “subconscious.” Most commonly, “subconscious” and “unconscious” are partially interchangeable. Neither of them outlines simply the Freudian concept of a “man behind the curtain” that dictates who you are or what you do. As a matter of fact, many of the concepts that article you posted were talking about were subconscious processes. “Subconscious” is a wide-sweeping word that encompasses both psychological and physiological properties.
The aspect you’re having trouble with seems to be the whole “talking to your subconscious” bit. I can understand that because, interpreted the wrong way, it can seem like someone’s saying “have a conversation with the little person in the back of your mind and tell him what you want,” when it comes to things like auto-suggestion. But, not being so quick to assume a person’s intent for suggesting that technique, you’d understand the other interpretation.
Making positive affirmations to your self has been proven to produce results, just the same as negative affirmations (even when beginning as passive “emo” bullshit) usually ends up in vicious downward spirals of worthlessness, self-loathing and depression that often consumes one’s entire life and saturates it in pathological, self-inflicted, negativity.
The “primitive” area of the brain that is responsible for producing dreams can be influenced by both positive and negative affirmations, just like it can be influenced by positive and negative emotional stimulus from the outside world.
Your behavior is not determined by your subconscious mind. You’re right about that. It is, though, managed subconsciously (or unconsciously). By becoming aware of your unconscious influences, sensitivities, desires, fears, etc. you can tweak your own faculties. You can “set the ball in motion” for old subconscious routines and habits to go away, and be replaced with new ones.
When you are dreaming (as even your article explains) those subconscious (unconscious) psychological elements are still playing a role, which is why dreams take on subjects which are usually so powerful to the dreamer. It is the vault for those “most primitive” thoughts and emotions, which even the dreamer may not be consciously aware of as being issues of great importance, until they are met with face to face, so to speak.
This being the case the Subconscious Mind really is a great stage for establishing recognition of the true Self, because the conscious mind usually ends up getting caught up in circumstantials like the need to impress peers, establish “image,” and is less likely to adhere to core beliefs, emotions and influences. Ironically, the conscious mind, the “thinking mind,” is the one most susceptible to delusion.

Quote:

---

For many of the regions that are classified above the term subconscious was derived to make explanation of some mechanisms of the brain more comprehensible. [/b]

---

so your saying that it a generalization like the left brain logic right brain creative so idiots can get a kindergarden grasp on what the brain does at that subconscious is just a simple dumb explanation on what the brain does.

Quote:

---

When you are dreaming (as even your article explains) those subconscious (unconscious)[/b]

---

depend if you believe the theory with proof or without it.

Quote:

---

unconscious mind

The unconscious or subconscious mind, according to classical Freudian psychoanalysis, is a "part" of the mind that stores repressed memories. The theory of repression maintains that some experiences are too painful to be reminded of, so the mind stuffs them in the cellar. These painful repressed memories manifest themselves in neurotic or psychotic behavior and in dreams. However, there is no scientific evidence either for the unconscious repression of traumatic experiences or their causal agency in neurotic or psychotic behavior.

The unconscious mind is also thought by some, such as Jung and Tart, to be a reservoir of transcendent truths. There is no scientific evidence that this is true. [/b]

---

http://skepdic.com/unconscious.html

Quote:

---

It is assumed that the unconscious is distinguished from the conscious by the fact that we are aware of conscious experience, but unaware of the unconscious. However, there is ample scientific data to establish as a fact that some conscious perception goes on without self-consciousness. It is possible to be unaware of having experienced something and unable to remember the experience, but still give evidence that one has had the experience.[/b]

---

most other thing control by brain other then conscious part go on without you self-consciously being aware of like breathing.

Quote:

---

It is the vault for those “most primitive” thoughts and emotions, which even the dreamer may not be consciously aware of as being issues of great importance, until they are met with face to face, so to speak.[/b]

---

that again is a assumption what not supported by fact

Quote:

---

see the main bulk of evidence is for the dreams coming from your visual primitive areas not from fraudien belife [/b]

---

Quote:

---

This being the case the Subconscious Mind really is a great stage for establishing recognition of the true Self, because the conscious mind usually ends up getting caught up in circumstantials like the need to impress peers, establish “image,” and is less likely to adhere to core beliefs, emotions and influences. Ironically, the conscious mind, the “thinking mind,” is the one most susceptible to delusion.[/b]

---

still this is a assumption which i have been looking for scientific evidence to support the claim but have found none so where is your scientific evidence oneironaut instead of personal belife which this seem to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

so your saying that it a generalization like the left brain logic right brain creative so idiots can get a kindergarden grasp on what the brain does at that subconscious is just a simple dumb explanation on what the brain does.
[/b]

---

No. “It’s created” so we can differentiate between referring to one area of the brain’s function and the other. As an example: the concept of continents having different names is not simply a dumb explanation of what a landmass is.

Quote:

---

depend if you believe the theory with proof or without it.[/b]

---

Heh, usually I’m pretty good about throwing in all my “I believe,” “I think” and “it’s my opinion”(s) to clearly state my opinion. Took it for granted after I started cause I have to hurry up and post, when at work. :P
But any way, I would call that more “subjective evidence,” than proof. I’ve been dealing with my dreams for more than long enough to provide myself with proof enough to consider that a possibility. You wouldn't believe how many concepts that I’ve forgotten, consciously, have resurfaced during dreams. Pieces of my life, or information that I’ve learned and lost, often make either small cameos or play predominant roles in my dreams. Constantly. Which do you think would be the fallacy: making an informal hypothesis, based on not only your own personal experience but the experiences you hear of countless others, all the time (being in a place like Dream Views, perhaps?), or simply turning yourself off to the existence of the subconscious (or that interpretation of it) because there is debate in the scientific community about it? Remember; judging by everything you’ve shown, all there is, is conflicting evidence – an argument – it doesn’t look like it’s been popularly accepted, either way, does it?
In getting back to the original point of this thread; you were coming on a little strong, weren’t you? You haven't shown anything that warrants stating "the subconscious: there is none," as fact, no matter how you use the word. :wink:

Quote:

---

still this is a assumption which i have been looking for scientific evidence to support the claim but have found none so where is your scientific evidence oneironaut instead of personal belife which this seem to me.
[/b]

---

Yup. Again you’re absolutely right that that’s an assumption, and I think it’s a well-founded assumption based on personally- and socially-subjective evidence (That I’m, of course, open to being proven otherwise). But, you’ve actually got me kind of interested into whether or not there is some evidence for it. I’ll look around, when I got the time, and see what I can find. :cooler:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("O")</div>

Quote:

---

Yup. Again you’re absolutely right that that’s an assumption, and I think it’s a well-founded assumption based on personally- and socially-subjective evidence (That I’m, of course, open to being proven otherwise). But, you’ve actually got me kind of interested into whether or not there is some evidence for it. I’ll look around, when I got the time, and see what I can find. [/b]

---

Ditto

I have done a lot of research on consciousness, subconscious, unconscious, involuntary actions. All of which point to what I said earlier.

SUBconscious. Like a sub forum. An attribute of the conscious brain activity as a whole.
Existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond consciousness: the subconscious self. Compare preconscious, unconscious.
Imperfectly or not wholly conscious: subconscious motivations. The totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unrepeatable mental activities.
Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious: subconscious perceptions.
The part of the mind below the level of conscious perception.

Scientist psychologist and the like all are always venturing into new regions of the brain. It is the most complex thing we know (or don&#39;t know) For many of the regions that are classified above the term subconscious was derived to make explanation of some mechanisms of the brain more comprehensible.

Quote:

---

Yup. Again you’re absolutely right that that’s an assumption, and I think it’s a well-founded assumption based on personally- and socially-subjective evidence (That I’m, of course, open to being proven otherwise). But, you’ve actually got me kind of interested into whether or not there is some evidence for it. I’ll look around, when I got the time, and see what I can find. [/b]

---

Quote:

---

BELIEVING IN MAGIC

The Psychology of Superstition

Stuart Vyse

Oxford University Press, 1997.

For anyone curious about why superstition is so common, Vyse&#39;s study is an essential addition to the library. The chapter on superstition and coincidence is a marvellous example of how laboratory psychology can throw light on everyday behaviour. In 1948, B. F. Skinner wrote a paper on superstition in pigeons, describing experiments where rewards were given at fixed intervals, like every 15 seconds, but the pigeon&#39;s behaviour showed operant conditioning, such that it associated an action, like pecking the floor or walking in circles, with the arrival of the reward. These conditioned behaviours were like rituals, and were performed in between rewards, even though there was no connection between doing anything at all and receiving food. Such behaviours were thus called superstitions.

Coincidence is described here as temporal contiguity: a behaviour occurring just as the reward is given is reinforced. Naturally, similar experiments have been performed with human subjects, with very interesting results. In Koichi Ono&#39;s 1987 experiment, subjects were asked to earn points in response to a signal light, and were faced with 3 levers, though they were not told to do anything in particular. They could see their score on a counter, but did not know that points were awarded completely irrespective of what they did.

Most subjects developed superstitious behaviour, mainly in patterns of lever-pulling, but in some cases in the form of elaborate or even strenuous actions of touching walls or jumping. Each of these superstitions began with a coincidence.

Vyse offers an evolutionary interpretation of conditioned superstition:

"When stakes are high, we are particularly susceptible to conditioning. There is a strong tendency to repeat any response that is coincident with reinforcement. In the long run, this tendency serves the species well: if turning in a circle really does operate the feeder, the bird eats and survives another day; if not, little is lost." (p.76)

The origins of magical thinking are discussed in a chapter on Growing Up Superstitious:

"As children learn the names of objects, they often exhibit what Piaget called nominal realism - the confusion of the name with the object itself. . . In children, nominal realism leads to the expectation that names and thoughts are connected with objects and can influence real world events." (p.153)

Unfortunately, of course, this childish tendency is not restricted to childhood. The counter to nominal realism is the old slogan, "the map is not the territory", but this simple notion is not understood by those who, to take a notorious example, practise dowsing by dangling a pendulum over a map of some land. How can this be anything other than infantile behaviour? This is part of the general issue of symbols, and will be discussed elsewhere on this site.[/b]

---

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.

Sorry if I turn out blind or an idiot again, but what does your "evidence" have to do with the subconcious. All it does it says that people pulled levers and did rituals to gain points.