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.

Quote:

---

Sorry if I turn out blind or an idiot, 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. [/b]

---

it hasent i just pointing out that personal experience is no substitute for physical evidence.

Quote:

---

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;d suggest you do, because so far you haven&#39;t shown anything that confirms your position. And I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;re allowing that disconnection with subjectivity make you so blind that your&#39;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.

Quote:

---

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&#39; approach only. There are many other ways that have also explained behaviour

Quote:

---

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 &#39;like REM is bullshit&#39; which is not quite the same thing

Quote:

---

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? :wtf:

Quote:

---

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? :wtf:
[/b]

---

I think the lame grammar of his statement said it all&#33;

Quote:

---

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/

Quote:

---

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]

---

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

“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&#39;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

Quote:

---

Yale University psychology professor John Kihlstrom, an authority on unconscious cognition, said, "Professor Greenwald&#39;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]

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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? :wtf:
[/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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Claim: We use only ten percent of our brains.

Status: False.

Origins: Someone
has taken most of your brain away and you probably didn&#39;t even know it. Well,not taken your brain away, exactly, but decided that you don&#39;t use it. It&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;ve heard psychics tell their audiences, "We only use ten percent of our minds. If scientists don&#39;t know what we do with the other ninety percent, it must be used for psychic powers&#33;" 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s Mind-Power Book in the introduction: "Our minds are capable of remarkable, incredible feats, yet we don&#39;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&#33; Can you explain that?" The skeptic replies that no, he can&#39;t. The UFO believer is gleeful. "Ha&#33; You don&#39;t know what it is, so it must be aliens&#33;" 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&#39;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&#39;t use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

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

---

Haha. Thanks.

Quote:

---

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&#39;t mean I should just declare that "I&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;sub-conscious&#39; itself. The term &#39;consciousness&#39; 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 &#39;no&#39;. The second question is undoubtably &#39;yes&#39;. 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 &#39;sub-conscious&#39; 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&#39;t know if that makes any sense, I kind of got a bit lost when reading through the thread.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.............

~

Quote:

---

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&#39;nus but I respectfully ask that you do put forth your opinion. For it seems becomingagodo will read something and defend it till it&#39;s death.
I know you are holding out on us. :wink:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolffe

I think the lame grammar of his statement said it all&#33;
[/b]

---

Speaking of which:
the Title --&#62; 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

Quote:

---

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&#39;nus.

I am in the process of reading one of Jung&#39;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&#39;s.
Great stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Thank you O&#39;nus.

I am in the process of reading one of Jung&#39;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&#39;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. :-P

~