GENIUS FORUMS

Dan,

That's not entirely true, but the gist is ok with me. It takes conscious thought to activate such a process - to "call" it - and conscious thought to be aware of the result and how to utilise it.

Even the calling of the process doesn't have to be completely conscious. But if it was conscious, so what? The calling of a routine is not in itself part of the routine, so my routine is still subconscious.

It also takes conscious thought to deal with problems that are not part of the learned subconscious routines.

How is this a problem? Those problems fall outside of the scope of the routine, so the routine doesn't get activated.

For those cases, I obviously have to call other routines.

Because rationality explicitly involves awareness. Such routines are not aware. They just run.

OK, I tell you what. Explain to me why "aware routines" are inherently better than "unaware routines". In what sense is a person who runs a lot of the former better than a person that runs a lot of the latter?

Hell no. What sort of idiot would advocate that?

I thought that was exactly what E was advocating: that wise people turn most of their subconscious processes into conscious processes. Is that not what you understood by her position?

It's not possible anyway as that is not how the brain functions.

If I can't go back to doing calculus problems consciously, what hope is there in turning other subconscious processes into conscious? What reason is there to tell people to become "more conscious"?

Let's change the wording of our positions around a bit: let's say we call your subconscious processes "thought" and we call my conscious processes "awareness". So, that means that thoughts formulate below awareness in the subconscious, but that which occurs within our awareness we can call the conscious.

How does that work for you?

I have no problem with it, except that what your wording accomplishes is to get people to feel superior to others (including treating others as inferior), based on the way terms are defined. It's a very old trick, but it is not an honest one. This is true because people classify the words "thought" and "rational" as desirable things, and "unaware" and "unconscious" as inferior things. This is the same exact thing QRS has done with terms such as "feminine" and "masculine", but I won't go there now. I'll let someone else explain that issue further.

It's called time difference induced sleep.

You slept 15 hours in one sitting?

.

Sher,

I hate to do this, but this thread keeps popping to my mind. Weininger would have agreed that you could do calculus without conciousness.
.

Dan's question still bears thinking about, as he evidently asked it knowing its answer.

The definition of rationality is to know why something is true or false. That is, it is dependent on memory.

Consciousness seems to pop out of nowhere, so that one may mistakenly infer that thoughts have come from "someplace underneath here that cannot be known, yet is known", ie. the sub conscious.

This is an error of logic, because the subconscious does have an identity within one's consciousness. It is more logical to say that thoughts simply appear, and not to assert a specific place that gives rise to them.

It is also an error of logic, because of the undeniable reality of memory, which implies that all reasoning is conscious. If there is a thing, then there is a definite memory of the thing contrasted with its own matching identity. This contrasting is reason.

Dan wrote:A "thought" is the subjectively emergent result of processes we do not yet fully understand.

No, I disagree with this. If there are processes that one has some, but not full, understanding of, then those processes are considered consciously.

We will never have any consciousness of anything beyond consciousness; but we can be fully conscious of whatever processes don't require intervention. For instance, if water is running in a stream, or breathable air being created, we don't require conscious control of how the water runs, or how the air is being created. All these processes can be called subconscious, in that they're operating without any necessary interference.

One can never have any understanding of processes that one is not aware of. Also, we also can never know all the causal processes that make awareness. Only when something "begs" for our attention does it form part of memory.

Dan wrote:More than that, a specific neural pathway is no more a "thought" than another neural pathway is "red".

Do you know this for certain?


-

Elizabeth,

Unless you've changed your mind since, your interpretation of Weininger's chapter on male and female consciousness, was incorrect.

If you're up to have another think about it, perhaps now is a good time.


-

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A thought is a concious thought. A subconcious process is a subconcious process. A subconcious process can provide the spark of a thought, but it is not thought, in a philosophic sense of the term.

A meta thought is thinking aobut thinking. What we are doing right now to make the posts for this thread is meta-thinking.

You know this stuff Dan, do you need to go back to bed for an hour?

No, but I could probably go back for other reasons. I'm not actually mulling over these issues in terms of sorting them out in my own head. I'm trying to find a way to communicate them so that Sher can see my point.

Dan, Sorry - carry on.

Kelly, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you have specific points, please post them on the other thread. Thank you.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Because rationality explicitly involves awareness. Such routines are not aware. They just run.

OK, I tell you what. Explain to me why "aware routines" are inherently better than "unaware routines". In what sense is a person who runs a lot of the former better than a person that runs a lot of the latter?

Are you seriously asking a philosopher that question? Conscious awareness is not simply "better" for philosophical purposes - i.e. for wisdom - it is imperative. It's even beyond imperative, it's what philosophy is. "Better" is a contextual concept. When doing the job of interpreting it is better to run subconscious routines. If you stopped to consciously consider everything you're interpreting, you'd be screwed.

Hell no. What sort of idiot would advocate that?

I thought that was exactly what E was advocating: that wise people turn most of their subconscious processes into conscious processes. Is that not what you understood by her position?

As yet I don't have a clear view of what her position is regarding that. You can't "stop" subconscious processes because you can't know them. If you did, they'd be conscious by definition.

It's not possible anyway as that is not how the brain functions.

If I can't go back to doing calculus problems consciously, what hope is there in turning other subconscious processes into conscious? What reason is there to tell people to become "more conscious"?

We're talking about 2 entirely different things. "Conscious" means aware of the content of one's mind. Do you think most people are conscious in this sense? Nevermind, that's just a rhetorical question. I know you know they aren't. When subconscious routines are operating well they should be left alone, but only the conscious mind can stop and judge their utility.

Let's change the wording of our positions around a bit: let's say we call your subconscious processes "thought" and we call my conscious processes "awareness". So, that means that thoughts formulate below awareness in the subconscious, but that which occurs within our awareness we can call the conscious.

How does that work for you?

I have no problem with it, except that what your wording accomplishes is to get people to feel superior to others (including treating others as inferior), based on the way terms are defined.

So what? All people are inferior or superior in some context or other. There's no escaping that - none. I want people to be superior (to how they were before) in consciousness and rationality. If you don't want that then I'm not sure what sort of world it is you're advocating.

It's a very old trick, but it is not an honest one.

There's hardly any trick to it. It's just how things are.

This is true because people classify the words "thought" and "rational" as desirable things, and "unaware" and "unconscious" as inferior things.

Yes, within a context. You classify non-classification as superior in your own context. You just don't know you do.

This is the same exact thing QRS has done with terms such as "feminine" and "masculine", but I won't go there now. I'll let someone else explain that issue further.

There's nothing to explain. When taken within the context of certain goals and values - things that are unavoidable for the human mind - dualities arise; dualities such as better and worse, right and wrong, inferior/superior.

It's called time difference induced sleep.

You slept 15 hours in one sitting?

No, of course not, but I don't spend all my waking hours here either.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kelly, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you have specific points, please post them on the other thread. Thank you.

Ok. I'll do my best, but it may not work.

I'm going to create two self-based images, to show the difference between the self that has monads, namely, the ability to distinguish elements from characters, and the vague consciousness that has henids, who cannot experience this distinction.

I'll post it in the other thread, with captions, and an explanation referring to Weininger's points. It does very much refer to this current discussion, too.

Give me a day or so.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:Dan's question still bears thinking about, as he evidently asked it knowing its answer.

The definition of rationality is to know why something is true or false. That is, it is dependent on memory.

Consciousness seems to pop out of nowhere, so that one may mistakenly infer that thoughts have come from "someplace underneath here that cannot be known, yet is known", ie. the sub conscious.

This is an error of logic, because the subconscious does have an identity within one's consciousness. It is more logical to say that thoughts simply appear, and not to assert a specific place that gives rise to them.

Yes, this is ultimately the case. Thought has no location and no demonstrable source. We can, however, infer relationships to what are called subconscious processes by way of empirical experiment. This is contingent like any empirical matter. We only really "know" what is there in our conscious mind.

Dan wrote:

A "thought" is the subjectively emergent result of processes we do not yet fully understand.

No, I disagree with this. If there are processes that one has some, but not full, understanding of, then those processes are considered consciously.

Well, I should have said that we will "never" fully understand. And yes, what we know of subconscious processes we know within the conscious. There is no such thing as unconscious or subconscious "knowing". It should be obvious that all things that we say we know we apprehend consciously, otherwise we wouldn't even begin to be able to say such a thing.

We will never have any consciousness of anything beyond consciousness; but we can be fully conscious of whatever processes don't require intervention.

Yes, otherwise we couldn't even speak of them.

For instance, if water is running in a stream, or breathable air being created, we don't require conscious control of how the water runs, or how the air is being created. All these processes can be called subconscious, in that they're operating without any necessary interference.

Yes.

Dan wrote:

More than that, a specific neural pathway is no more a "thought" than another neural pathway is "red".

Do you know this for certain?

Yes. It's A=A. A neural pathway is not "red". If it was "red" we'd call it "red". A neural pathway is a neural pathway. What its relationship is to other experiences may be is merely something inferred

Well, I think the idea of subconscious processes is false. I think the process that occurs is the natural decay of memories and overgrowing of mental pathways that make it more likely to go off the beaten track when an old path is re-traversed, and that's what I think gives the illusion that there is some kind of active process going on in the background.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:For instance, if water is running in a stream, or breathable air being created, we don't require conscious control of how the water runs, or how the air is being created. All these processes can be called subconscious, in that they're operating without any necessary interference.

Yes.

I disagree. How air is being created or how river runs in a stream is non-concious. Subconcious would require a mind to have some input on the matter, and this is not the case.

From Friday

This should be insulting, but it is too true. David's story about the Zen Master denying entry to a beautiful female out of concern that she would be too much of a distraction to the monks tells me that men have never been good at forced celibacy. The story also made me wonder how many men would have had the dedication to burn off their faces to see if that would be a sufficient price to pay to get into a monestary.

.

Tharan

True. The only character of strength and conviction represented in David's story is displayed by the woman.

I completely disagree with this. All I can see in the story is excessive attachment to the point of insanity. You can't say it is rational.

It is about as primitive as other form of disfiguration for the purposes of entry into a group, which is mostly done by young males in order to be4 respected as adults.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:I thought that was exactly what E was advocating: that wise people turn most of their subconscious processes into conscious processes. Is that not what you understood by her position?

As yet I don't have a clear view of what her position is regarding that. You can't "stop" subconscious processes because you can't know them. If you did, they'd be conscious by definition.

As I apologized for before, I got into a tangle by mixing philosophic and mundane definitions, as well I got philosophic and mundane topics jumbled together. Mundane definitions leave all functions except breathing that are controlled by the autonomic nervous system as "subconcious." Breathing, because most people can either take or relinquish voluntary control of this, is considered "semi-concious." Dan is correct that philosophically, anything that you conciously control is evidence of conciousness.

My position was that some people are able (read, "capable" or "can" or "may" - but do not interpret as "must at all times") gain control over parts of their bodies that others do not control. This can either be through direct control, like slowing of the heart rate, or indirect control, such as increasing the immune system.

This does not mean that at all times for the remainder of their lives they will concentrate on and directly control their heart rate.

Next topic.

Quantitatively, the more a person is concious of, the more concious they are. If one is concious of the nature of time, they have some conciousness. If they are also concious of the nature of cause and effect, they are more concious. If one was half concious of cause and effect, then became fully concious of cause and effect, they became more concious than they were.

Quantitatively in mundane terms, still the more one is concious of, the more concious one is. If A is only concious that her foot is on fire but B is both concious that her foot is on fire and that there is a full rainbucket at the corner of the house, B would be more concious than A.

Quantitatively, if one is concious of their heart beating and can control it, they are more concious than one who can not. Although this is a neat yogi trick, I'm not sure it has anything to do with the focus of this board.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:For instance, if water is running in a stream, or breathable air being created, we don't require conscious control of how the water runs, or how the air is being created. All these processes can be called subconscious, in that they're operating without any necessary interference.

Yes.

I disagree. How air is being created or how river runs in a stream is non-concious. Subconcious would require a mind to have some input on the matter, and this is not the case.

Well, actually, both these, and all other things that exist, are actually having "mind-inputs", because they don't exist without a mind giving rise to them.

Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

We can of course decide that some things are not capable of "interfering", and call them "unconscious".

-

Dan,

I think I understand your position now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

There is one point I want to address.

Sher: This is the same exact thing QRS has done with terms such as "feminine" and "masculine", but I won't go there now. I'll let someone else explain that issue further.

Dan: There's nothing to explain. When taken within the context of certain goals and values - things that are unavoidable for the human mind - dualities arise; dualities such as better and worse, right and wrong, inferior/superior.

I will try to explain it with another example.

Just for this exercise, please assume that IQ is a good measure of how smart a person is.

Definitions:
Black People (BP) = people with IQ < 80
White People (WP) = people with IQ >= 80
black people (bp) = people of the black race
white people (wp) = people of the white race

Some bp are WP.
Some bp are BP.
Some wp are BP.
Some wp are WP.

All White People are smarter than all Black People.

The latter is true by definition. But the point of coming up with something like this is to put down black people, to make white people feel superior, and to trick people into thinking that "all white people are smarter than all black people". I mean, after I get them to agree that "All White People are smarter than all Black People", the transition is not that difficult.

You may ask, who is dumb enough to fall for that cheap trick? Well, obviously, many people are that dumb. All the posters in this forum are certainly not above it. The mind does play games with the mind-owner.

.

Jamesh wrote:From Friday

This should be insulting, but it is too true. David's story about the Zen Master denying entry to a beautiful female out of concern that she would be too much of a distraction to the monks tells me that men have never been good at forced celibacy. The story also made me wonder how many men would have had the dedication to burn off their faces to see if that would be a sufficient price to pay to get into a monestary.

Tharan

True. The only character of strength and conviction represented in David's story is displayed by the woman.

I completely disagree with this. All I can see in the story is excessive attachment to the point of insanity. You can't say it is rational.

It is about as primitive as other form of disfiguration for the purposes of entry into a group, which is mostly done by young males in order to be respected as adults.

Again, way too much and too little is read into the Zen story. Who cares what exactly the monastery was about specifically? Maybe they raped little boy monks in the basement too!

All that matters is that in the culture this story is situated in, the only way to seriously engage the philosophical path was to dedicate yourself to a monastery. There really was no other individual road available around this.

This means that the story is about a woman wanting to enter the philosophical path and found her way barred.

Now another mistake made is to assume that her physical appearance would be a "distraction for the monks" which is again reading way too much in the story possibly attempting to ignore the real point.

Think about this: would the woman really cause really less 'trouble' with her damaged face? Is it the face of a woman the 'feverish' monks would be dreaming about at night? Now that's a funny thought! So after burning her face also her enticing figure, limbs, breasts, skin, walk and smell would be gone too? Don't you see how completely lacking in depth this line of interpretation is?

The only thing changed by burning her face is the beauty in the mirror, the 'self'-image. That's the reason she was denied access and that's why she 'fixed' it.

It's really worrying that someone has to explain the bleeding obvious about a Zen story. The reason the story is on its place in a discussion about Avatars and showing pictures of ourselves or the things we find beautiful doesn't need explaining I hope.

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, actually, both these, and all other things that exist, are actually having "mind-inputs", because they don't exist without a mind giving rise to them.

Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

We can of course decide that some things are not capable of "interfering", and call them "unconscious".

If there were no humans, streams would still run, and the air would probably be much better.

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, actually, both these, and all other things that exist, are actually having "mind-inputs", because they don't exist without a mind giving rise to them.

This looks a little like something David wrote in WOTI, but your supporting statements are backwards from his. I have a third opinion, which I sated just above.

Oversimplifying David's work, he basically said that nothing exists out there because all of our perceptions are housed in our minds. The tree we experience is only a representation in our minds.

My perception is that the Infinite is, with or without human representation - or even without a conscious mind to perceive it.

I agree with you Kelly that humans with the level of consciousness they have are tremendous factors in the way of anything within their extended reach. Being pleasing to humans is a prime factor in the current stage of evolution, and will become an increasingly greater factor over the extremely near future.

Kelly Jones wrote:Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

I have to agree with that statement based on that consciousness is interested in everything. If something exists (and some things that don’t exist), somebody is interested in it. I do not agree with the reasons you gave for making that statement, though.

Kelly Jones wrote:Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

There is much of the Infinite that is beyond the reach of humans. If your statement were limited to human consciousness, Earth, and any space endeavors, and you were speaking to me from far in the future, then this could be generally true. With the rapid changing of the environment, much of whatever gets saved is going to have to be saved by humans. (as a side note on global warming, a couple of days ago, Chicago got “thundersnow” – and no one around had even heard of such a thing before. Thunder and lightning just didn’t used to happen in a snowstorm)

As it is, even limited to the parameters above, I’d say that very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen. Consciousness does not want the garbage that is produced (this can be taken in many ways). Humans just aren’t conscious enough to take the kind of control you are talking about.
.

Elizabeth,

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:KJ: Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

We can of course decide that some things are not capable of "interfering", and call them "unconscious".

E: If there were no humans, streams would still run, and the air would probably be much better.

If there is no consciousness, then there are no things.

For there to be any things, there needs to be consciousness.

Elizabeth wrote:Oversimplifying David's work, he basically said that nothing exists out there because all of our perceptions are housed in our minds. The tree we experience is only a representation in our minds.

My perception is that the Infinite is, with or without human representation - or even without a conscious mind to perceive it.

A tree is not a representation of something, but rather the only form it could possibly take. What appears in our minds is not an "imperfect" version of something beyond the mind. Whatever appears, is what it is. There are no perfect versions.

The Infinite is made up of whatever appears. When there are no appearances, the Infinite has no forms. Yes, it continues, and we can say it "is", but it isn't any particular form that we can imagine.

Elizabeth wrote:I agree with you Kelly that humans with the level of consciousness they have are tremendous factors in the way of anything within their extended reach.

Human consciousness does not have a location, that can "reach". We cannot with certainty say that there is anything at all "out there". We might assume that consciousness produces "content" within one's field of awareness after a few seconds' processing, but that is pure speculation.

Being pleasing to humans is a prime factor in the current stage of evolution, and will become an increasingly greater factor over the extremely near future.

Reminds me of the Buddhist saying, "The world is created by desire".

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

E: I have to agree with that statement based on that consciousness is interested in everything. If something exists (and some things that don’t exist), somebody is interested in it. I do not agree with the reasons you gave for making that statement, though.

Things don't exist prior to anyone observing them.

Why do you believe they do?

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

E: There is much of the Infinite that is beyond the reach of humans.

What if you alter "humans" to "consciousness"? Do you hold your statement still to be true?

Elizabeth wrote:very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen.

This reaffirms my point, namely, that consciousness only takes an interest in what affects it, whether that is based on conscious valuing or from subconscious hardwiring.



-

I have added my posts to the Weininger thread, Elizabeth.

These should address what I saw as the main oversight in your explanation of the chapter on male and female consciousness.

I haven't posted the two additional translations, as I haven't decided whether they're unnecessary or not.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:KJ: Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

We can of course decide that some things are not capable of "interfering", and call them "unconscious".

E: If there were no humans, streams would still run, and the air would probably be much better.

If there is no consciousness, then there are no things.

For there to be any things, there needs to be consciousness.

I think I see how you arrive at this conclusion, but I want to be sure. Perhaps it would be helpful if you described to me exactly what a thing is, including its nature. Do you believe a thing is only your perception of it?

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:Oversimplifying David's work, he basically said that nothing exists out there because all of our perceptions are housed in our minds. The tree we experience is only a representation in our minds.

My perception is that the Infinite is, with or without human representation - or even without a conscious mind to perceive it.

A tree is not a representation of something, but rather the only form it could possibly take. What appears in our minds is not an "imperfect" version of something beyond the mind. Whatever appears, is what it is. There are no perfect versions.

I agree that something is what it is, and disagree with David's presentation of what exists. Our perception of "what is" though is imperfect because humans have limitations of perception. For example, when we look at something, we can not see the other side of it.

Kelly Jones wrote:The Infinite is made up of whatever appears. When there are no appearances, the Infinite has no forms. Yes, it continues, and we can say it "is", but it isn't any particular form that we can imagine.

This would be true if it were true that there were no things unless there was a consciousness to perceive it. You logic is circular here.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:I agree with you Kelly that humans with the level of consciousness they have are tremendous factors in the way of anything within their extended reach.

Human consciousness does not have a location, that can "reach". We cannot with certainty say that there is anything at all "out there". We might assume that consciousness produces "content" within one's field of awareness after a few seconds' processing, but that is pure speculation.

You misunderstood me here. I did not mean within the reach of human consciousness, I meant within the physical reach of human influence

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Nothing exists beyond what consciousnesses takes an interest in.

E: I have to agree with that statement based on that consciousness is interested in everything. If something exists (and some things that don’t exist), somebody is interested in it. I do not agree with the reasons you gave for making that statement, though.

Things don't exist prior to anyone observing them.

Why do you believe they do?

Because I am taking a non-egocentric perspective. It is just not logical that conscious perception would be the cause of anything other than thoughts. If I see a clock and it says 9:00, then go away and come back in an hour, and it says 10:00, it is far more logical that the clock remained, it's gears moved by its power source, and came to read 10:00 by these causes. It is less logical that the clock was there because I saw it, it went away when I left, and magically came to exist and read 10:00 just because I saw it again an hour later.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:KJ: Things only exist because they have meaning and use for human consciousness. If streams did not run, and if air stopped being created as we'd like it, we'd soon interfere.

E: There is much of the Infinite that is beyond the reach of humans.

What if you alter "humans" to "consciousness"? Do you hold your statement still to be true?

Perhaps on the quantum level, consciousness of something can alter it. I just don't have enough information to know for certain if this is so, to what extent, and whether the effects are congruent with wishes or intent.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:very much indeed exists because of unconsciousness and non-consciousness. Humans don’t want tornados, but they happen.

This reaffirms my point, namely, that consciousness only takes an interest in what affects it, whether that is based on conscious valuing or from subconscious hardwiring.

If there were no tornados, then how would consciousness take an interest in them? If a thing only exists because consciousness is aware of it, the awareness would have to come before the thing. Cause comes before effect. If one perceives something that is not there, it is a delusion. If the thing happens to be there later does not negate the point where something was perceived to be there that was not there.
.

I'll start a new thread in the main forum, Elizabeth, and respond to your post there.