The subjective observer is a fictional character

[SpeedOfSound]

As far as writing backwards, etc., I have never said that our brains/awareness/consciousness or whatever don't come with limitations. They do. We all come with a bunch of limitations, but that's just part of the description of who we are as beings. I am under the impression that there are some people who are able to write backwards, read upside down, etc. For some reasons, they don't come with those particular limitations.

I am not aware of a single person that could write backwards, or forwards, at birth without learning it. If you read in a mirror or upside down or whatever , you can learn the skill very quickly. That's precisely the point. Learning skills is done with C and it then becomes completely automatic unless it needs troubleshooting.

EDIT: Writing the words and letters backward is how it is to write when 20-40% of what you do is conscious rather than just 2.

[SpeedOfSound]

For most of my life, I heard that thing about how we only use 10% of our brains. One day, I picked up a copy of Scientific American, and I read that 10% thing was a crock of shit, that researchers found that we use 100% of our brains. If we only use that 2%, and the rest is automatic, maybe all that we need is that 2%.

Yes. The 10% deal was a crock. And No.. The 2% will not suffice. conscious acts are slow, ploddingly slow, and limited in various functions to 2-9 items. Tigers would eat us if we didn't use the 98% UnC. Furthermore, your conscious experience wouldn't work without it. You would feel much closer to what a robot or a croc feels.

[SpeedOfSound]

Also. If you consciously selected your writing style and words then you would be able to do the whole thing backwards as quickly as forwards. This is proof. This thing about the UnC has been rigorously tested and proven. If you pay me I will go and find all the research for you. ( I stole that from CSG-heh!).

I could link you to a book or two that would help. Look up Bernard Baars.

[SpeedOfSound]

5- Yes, you have "suggested" that something is the whole basis of creative thought. That's all you have done...suggested it. Can I prove to you when I have a conscious thought? Gee, Graham, I don't know any way to do that. I tell you what...think of a lemon. I'm more than willing to bet your week's salary that you just thought of a lemon when you read those words, and you were conscious when you did it. More than that, I'm willing to bet another of your week's salary that your salivary glands started salivating when you consciously had that thought. Please understand, I'm not about to catch a plane to the UK to examine your salivary glands, but I think we can know that happened to you and others who conceptualized the lemon. That's an example of consciousness predicating a physical response in our bodies. It happens all the time.

I would bet a months salary that you weren't aware of the letters in the word lemon when you typed them or when they were read. Probably not even the word. The lemon thought just pooked into mind as the the sentence flowed. Where you aware of the word pooked above? Did it pop the lemon out when you became aware of it? Did the lemon return by itself or did it wait until you read the next lemon?

Is the lemon getting a little clearer as we continue to discuss the yellow lemons? Is it getting a little tarter meow that I write this? Meow?

You probably had 200 experiences while reading that and underneath you lit up 10's of millions of neruons adn your brain looked like an aurora borealis. The parts that you experienced more fully were the increasing activation of your lemony qualia space and the places where I mistyped or stopped you. Also any areas where you found yourself emotively disagreeing with me or where I was not clear.

Now the unconscious things that happened were far more multitudinous than the ones that were. There are two reasons for this. One is if they didn't hit that 1/5th second threshold they would not be experienced. Another is that much of this has been relegated to a different system in the brain which bypasses the set of your consciousness, the thalamus.

Not least of all another reason is that much of what we learn is highly abstract and has no common connection with our real world of space and time and it then fails to erect a proper qualia space around it. Unlike the lemon! which we have massive experience with.

SOS Principle. Experience is historically cumulative and it's intensity is quantitatively linked to that accumulation. Quality is quantitative when it comes to experience.

[GrahamH]

Yes, I have failed with you, so far, to get you to admit how you experience time, and you "didn't think" it was relevant. From what I can tell, if you are aware of something you "didn't think," it is still thinking.

You are still talking about a conventional view of time with past present and future and not making a point about time and consciousness. Clearly memory is crucial to mind. Is there anything controversial there?
You seem to be under a serious misapprehension that I am denying that people think or have experiences. I am not. I am questioning the nature of these phenomena.

Yes, you have "suggested" that something is the whole basis of creative thought. That's all you have done...suggested it.

And you suggested your creative writing was a fully conscious activity. When asked to give an account of it all you offered was 'recognise' and 'select'. What produces the thoughts (or pre-thoughts if you like) that are recognised and selected? What makes you think that the recognising and selecting is being done by conscious mind, rather than being conscious of the results of an unconscious process?

Can I prove to you when I have a conscious thought? Gee, Graham, I don't know any way to do that.

I didn't ask you to do that. Try proving it to yourself. Ask yourself where your ideas come from. It becomes obvious that thought generation is not a conscious process.

I tell you what...think of a lemon. I'm more than willing to bet your week's salary that you just thought of a lemon when you read those words, and you were conscious when you did it. More than that, I'm willing to bet another of your week's salary that your salivary glands started salivating when you consciously had that thought.

You owe me one weeks wages. I'll PM you with my paypal account for payment.

Do I think that part of our consciousness exists after the F&B suit dies? Yes. I base that consideration on real life experiences, including a "visit" from my mother about three days after passing in 2001. Can I prove it to you? No, but it was and still is very real for me.

I have no doubt that your consciousness lived on after your mother died, and you had vivid memories of her. I don't doubt that you had an experience. Whether that tells us anything about the metaphysics of consciousness is, at best, questionable, but such experiences might indicate something about how our minds function at extremes.

[GrahamH]

GrahamH, OK, it's a new morning, and I've just had my coffee...

Let's start with your words "Perhaps there really is a present where change occurs, in which case 'experience' could only happen 'now.' Bingo! That is what I'm asking you to consider. There is no "perhaps" about present time. You are in it right 'now,' and wherever you are, it is 'here.' As you have other experiences, this present time will become the past, 'there' and 'then,' and you are in a new 'here' and 'now.' If you can demonstrate that experience happens any other time than present time, please do so. I might point out to our if you are considering the past or the future, you are doing it from present time.

At the risk of being considered 'wooish' by some, I might point out to you that this idea is hardly new. It has it's foundations in such things as the Greek philosophers, Buddhism, gestalt psychology and a lot of other things.

I've got to do a few things, but I'll be back shortly...

The only problem with that is it isn't possible. Please try to grasp because this is the hook upon which all misunderstandings about consciousness swings. You can not experience the infinitesimal cusp point of time. Your experience is made of a stuff that smears time. Both physically and conceptually. It requires a certain small persistence (1/5 second) but it also requires change. How much water pumps around the eddy of a stream when you freeze time?

Is he suggesting instantaneous consciousness independent of memory? I can't see what his point is.

[SpeedOfSound]

GrahamH, OK, it's a new morning, and I've just had my coffee...

Let's start with your words "Perhaps there really is a present where change occurs, in which case 'experience' could only happen 'now.' Bingo! That is what I'm asking you to consider. There is no "perhaps" about present time. You are in it right 'now,' and wherever you are, it is 'here.' As you have other experiences, this present time will become the past, 'there' and 'then,' and you are in a new 'here' and 'now.' If you can demonstrate that experience happens any other time than present time, please do so. I might point out to our if you are considering the past or the future, you are doing it from present time.

At the risk of being considered 'wooish' by some, I might point out to you that this idea is hardly new. It has it's foundations in such things as the Greek philosophers, Buddhism, gestalt psychology and a lot of other things.

I've got to do a few things, but I'll be back shortly...

The only problem with that is it isn't possible. Please try to grasp because this is the hook upon which all misunderstandings about consciousness swings. You can not experience the infinitesimal cusp point of time. Your experience is made of a stuff that smears time. Both physically and conceptually. It requires a certain small persistence (1/5 second) but it also requires change. How much water pumps around the eddy of a stream when you freeze time?

Is he suggesting instantaneous consciousness independent of memory? I can't see what his point is.

I can't tell either.

[LaMont Cranston]

SOS & GrahamH, No, I am suggesting that consciousness includes memory. Of course memory is crucial to mind, and, fortunately, we have memory, but we only can experience the past from present time when we look back. No, I am not under any apprehension, serious or otherwise, that we think or have experiences. It's quite obvious that we think, and one of the experiences we have is thinking. I am also considering the nature of these phenomena.

Our experiences, including the ones we consider to be conscious ones, exist in space and time, a "where" and a "when," a "here" and a "now." I'm asking you to consider how we actually perceive experiences, and, regardless of how we become aware of thoughts, from the experience of perception, we have experiences in present time.

If I'm talking about a "conventional" view of time, where we exist in the present moment and experience the past and future from "now," so be it. I'm not sure how "conventional" that viewpoint is, but, as I've said, it has its roots in classical philosophy, the teachings of Buddha, gestalt psychology and lots of other places. Maybe that's what makes it "conventional." If you can demonstrate that experiences, whether they be thinking thoughts or interactions with so-called material objects in the world of objective reality, exist without the context of space and time, I'll stop talking about those things.

OK, I've got to go away for awhile, but I intend to address some of SOS's posts in the near future. I might point out that is a conscious decision I'm making in present time about a future time event. See you real soon...

[LaMont Cranston]

SOS, You ran 5 posts a me in a row, and let's see if I can cover at least some of your points...

You said there was a seamless interplay between unconscious, barely conscious and conscious. If it's seamless, can we recognize which one of those states we are in? I'd like to suggest to you that the way that we perceive experiences is also seamless. We have whatever perceptions we do in the moment, but that moment is not frozen. We don't freeze time; we experience it and seamlessly move on to other moments and other experiences. We can and do experience change...or the illusion of it...as we live our lives.

If I ask you if you are conscious right now, you can answer "yes," "no" or "I'm not sure." However, if you come up with any of those answers, you must be conscious enough to know that's your answer. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, is saying that we don't use that 98%; we do, and most of us manage to go through life and avoid being eaten by tigers. Furthermore, nobody is saying that our conscious experience wouldn't function without that 98%.

As for whether or not that 2% will suffice, it seems to do that quite well. If our unconscious brains take care of 98% of what we need to do to survive, and the other 2%, no matter how slow, plodding and limited it is, can handle 2-9 functions, I'd say that the entire unit is functioning at a high level of efficiency. Just how many functions do we need to consciously handle at any moment in time to be conscious, especially when we can access our memories of the past, consider the future, etc? It could be that, at any moment in time, only one conscious function is necessary. If you add up all of the conscious experiences we have over the sum total of our moments, the number is huge.

If I have the goal of writing backwards, reading upside down or whatever, and that utilizes 20-40% of consciousness, just how do we go from 2% to 20-40%? Is that a decision we make to be more conscious? Do we decide to show greater interest and be more aware?

I do not see how it logically follows that if I consciously select my words and writing style that I should be able to do the whole thing backwards as quickly as forwards. Simply because we have consciousness does not mean that we are without limitations. We are limited however we are limited. I will look up Bernard Baars when I have a little more time, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say.

You are correct, experience is historically cumulative. Once again, we are only consciously aware of those past experiences in present time. It is also true that much of what we learn is highly abstract, but we are perfectly capable of dealing with all kinds of abstract ideas, concepts, thoughts, viewpoints, etc. In fact, it's quite easy. There is a very genuine connection to the real world in both space and time, and we can know that this is true because we can track the history of ideas and other non-physical things over space and time, both in our own lives and how they play out in the world.

We might consider historicallly an idea such as "All men are created equal." Jefferson didn't invent that concept, but he had a lot to do with putting it more into play in the world, and it's still a work in progress.

OK, see you soon...

[SpeedOfSound]

I'd like to suggest to you that the way that we perceive experiences is also seamless.
...
If I have the goal of writing backwards, reading upside down or whatever, and that utilizes 20-40% of consciousness, just how do we go from 2% to 20-40%? Is that a decision we make to be more conscious? Do we decide to show greater interest and be more aware?

I do not see how it logically follows that if I consciously select my words and writing style that I should be able to do the whole thing backwards as quickly as forwards. Simply because we have consciousness does not mean that we are without limitations. We are limited however we are limited. I will look up Bernard Baars when I have a little more time, and I look forward to seeing what he has to say.

Yes. C and experience and thinking and all of it is seamless. Like a big fuzzy ball rolling in time.

I wasn't clear on writing backwards. If you did everything your mind does, while writing, consciously then it would be as SLOW as writing upside down and backwards. But if you practice you learn to make most of what you do unconscious. Then it's fast and automatic. That's what happened as you learned to write as a child.

Consciously thinking about things as you do them is slow and cumbersome. We knew that. What we know now is why.

The purpose of C is to make things persistent in working memory so that you can figure out and learn new tasks.

[SpeedOfSound]

Try this. Reach out and pick up some small object between your fingers. You used over twenty muscles to do that each being activated like a giant orchestra with playing thousands of notes. It is all guided by a dance of interaction with your eyes and tactile senses.

The part that is conscious is only that you read my words and have made a decision to pick it up. Everything else is behind the scenes.

Thinking uses the same mechanisms in slightly more forward parts of the brain.

[LaMont Cranston]

SOS, I do get what you are saying about picking up that object with my fingers, and I agree with you that, as a unit, we are beings that function in that manner. However, it still requires a decision on my part to pick up the object. By me, that's a conscious act.

Picking up that object is a relatively simple task. Let's consider something much more complex. I have formulated a goal in life to stay out of jail. So far, I have succeeded at doing that. That doesn't mean that I've completely avoided criminal activity in my life; I've been involved in a certain amount of crime, but I have a clean record and never spent a night in jail. In order to achieve my goal of avoiding imprisonment, I've had to make countless decisions that include weighing probabilities, dealing with the stupid behavior of others, avoiding certain assholes, etc. To my way of thinking, this has entailed a rather large collection of decisions, all the while knowing that there is also an uncertainty factor that goes with living one's life.

I believe we both agree that thinking involves using the brain, and much of what goes on is behind the scenes. That being said, consciousness appears to involve, among other things, weighing options, correcting mistakes, changing course, knowing when to take a break or quit and a bunch of other things that we can discern are available to us.

[GrahamH]

SOS, I do get what you are saying about picking up that object with my fingers, and I agree with you that, as a unit, we are beings that function in that manner. However, it still requires a decision on my part to pick up the object. By me, that's a conscious act.

Picking up that object is a relatively simple task. Let's consider something much more complex. I have formulated a goal in life to stay out of jail. So far, I have succeeded at doing that. That doesn't mean that I've completely avoided criminal activity in my life; I've been involved in a certain amount of crime, but I have a clean record and never spent a night in jail. In order to achieve my goal of avoiding imprisonment, I've had to make countless decisions that include weighing probabilities, dealing with the stupid behavior of others, avoiding certain assholes, etc. To my way of thinking, this has entailed a rather large collection of decisions, all the while knowing that there is also an uncertainty factor that goes with living one's life.

I believe we both agree that thinking involves using the brain, and much of what goes on is behind the scenes. That being said, consciousness appears to involve, among other things, weighing options, correcting mistakes, changing course, knowing when to take a break or quit and a bunch of other things that we can discern are available to us.

Of course you make decisions, but what part of you is doing that, and how?

How, precisely, do you go about 'weighing probabilities'? What part of you judges 'stupid behavior'? By what conscious thought do you conclude that certain people are 'assholes'? I suggest that you just recognise these things. If pushed you would be able to pick out some specific events that make the point, but you didn't review and evaluate such events to consciously decide that 'that guy is an asshole'. It seems to me that such judgements are part of the automatic mind that recognises complex patterns. The part that just knows it's your mother's face, without conscious you having to consciously check facial features against a memory to decide it is your mother.

I think the NNs are 'weighing probabilities' all the time. It is there that the assessment of 'asshole' and 'stupid' are made. The conscious thought 'you are an asshole' follows when the judgement gets attention.

Is 'attention' more complex than such judgements? It is a brining together of some information that 'I know', which is itself a pattern recognised. The pattern asshole + stupid behaviour + high probability of crime = pattern Jailbait --> action = avoid. Your 'conscious decision' is perhaps a communication about why the decision was made rather than the making of the decision. The generation of language to communicate about such thing has probably evolved to communicate to others, but, since the channel exists, it has become an internal feedback loop for communicating with ourselves.

In any case I am content to say that 'you made the decision' (it happened in your brain) and it may have involved 'moral principles' in the decision matrix.

[SpeedOfSound]

SOS, I do get what you are saying about picking up that object with my fingers, and I agree with you that, as a unit, we are beings that function in that manner. However, it still requires a decision on my part to pick up the object. By me, that's a conscious act.

Picking up that object is a relatively simple task. Let's consider something much more complex. I have formulated a goal in life to stay out of jail. So far, I have succeeded at doing that. That doesn't mean that I've completely avoided criminal activity in my life; I've been involved in a certain amount of crime, but I have a clean record and never spent a night in jail. In order to achieve my goal of avoiding imprisonment, I've had to make countless decisions that include weighing probabilities, dealing with the stupid behavior of others, avoiding certain assholes, etc. To my way of thinking, this has entailed a rather large collection of decisions, all the while knowing that there is also an uncertainty factor that goes with living one's life.

I believe we both agree that thinking involves using the brain, and much of what goes on is behind the scenes. That being said, consciousness appears to involve, among other things, weighing options, correcting mistakes, changing course, knowing when to take a break or quit and a bunch of other things that we can discern are available to us.

BTW. So far it's been a pleasure to exchange with you. Compared to some others. You are either what I call a thinking christian or even better a theist without the Christ. In many respects I have built a bridge to fellas like that.

Some evidence that very mush supports what I think you are getting to is this. C and UnC processes have different IQ's. They have done hundreds of tests on the difference between the two by using two streams of incompatible input. One is to have two separate dialogs, one for each ear, and asking the subject to pay attention to only one. It becomes very clear that one is experienced and the other is not experienced at all.

Yet the UnC dialog is definitely being processed by the brain. They prove this with brain scans, electrodes, and statistical differences in something called priming. Priming has an effect on the interpretation of the conscious flow. You might know this a subliminal messages.

But. They found that subliminal messages do not work to sell pop and chips. They are too stupid for that. Concepts that require things as simple as novel two word combos do not have an effect. One word and very common, well learned, two word combos do. Baars in his book In the Theater of Consciousness has some remarkable tests you can do on yourself. Check out page 23 in the google book preview and look at Mary had Lamb.

http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en&source=iglk#max70

SO it seems that it requires C to make complex decisions and choices. But. C is kind of like the quarterback with the ball who everyone watches. But he would be on his ass beneath a pile of opposition if it were not for the unwatched members of the team. C is the tip of the iceberg.

Baars addresses much of this later but in his intro here he leaves you thinking that the UnC is dumber than it actually is. These many little atoms of dumb process add up to some very complex decisions that we make without thinking them through.

A common word for that is intuition. Our intuition is like a little accountant in the back room who sums up all the details and makes a one word recommendation like Buy or Sell. We might think him a lazy fuck but he does a thousand times as much work as anyone else at the office.

Consider your crime example.

this has entailed a rather large collection of decisions,

You made the bulk of those decisions in the past. Consciously of course. You consciously selected and trained the members of your intuitive team and they are now a substantive part of who you are. For that historical whole you are responsible. You are free to make changes in that whole by consciously seeking out and changing the presumptions.

We call that psychotherapy or taking an inventory or confessing our sins or whatever.

Enough for now.

[GrahamH]

...
Consider your crime example.

this has entailed a rather large collection of decisions,

You made the bulk of those decisions in the past. Consciously of course. You consciously selected and trained the members of your intuitive team and they are now a substantive part of who you are. For that historical whole you are responsible. You are free to make changes in that whole by consciously seeking out and changing the presumptions.

Do you mean 'moral lessons' were learned consciously in the past? Would you agree that we don't have to be conscious of the implications of an event, at the time, for it to inform our decisions later?

A simple example - a child reaches out and touches a flame. It burns, it hurts, lesson learned. But, does the child have to make a conscious decision 'I will never touch a flame again' for its future behaviour to be modified? Conscious attention at the time is probably focussed on the pain, not the implications for future behaviour. Is the conscious attention send resulting in a not so specific message (synapse inhibiting?) 'whatever you just did remember to not do it again'?

Another example - a conversation occurs and nothing particular strikes you at the time. Later a similar subject is being discussed and the profound significance of something said in the previous conversation becomes obvious. The relevant information isn't consciously tagged as significant at the time, and not consciously in-mind next time. The significance is recognised unconsciously and comes to attention.