That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such. — AmadeusD

When it comes to the conscious mind, preconsciousness is a term that refers to the accumulation of data in the conscious mind. If the data is proper, then a chain of thought is generated by the conscious mind. The conscious mind has an important duty: processing the delivered data very fast. The conscious mind has a very limited memory; this memory is registered for important topics only. But if you read what I wrote once more carefully, you will then realize that the conscious mind cannot do its job without a perfect intervention of the subconscious mind. You work on a topic given the limited related data, finish the job by creating a new idea, and then the conscious mind is done and stays silent. That is what you are, the conscious mind. Like it or not, without the subconscious mind, you can do very limiting things. There would be no long stream of thoughts, no long stream of words, no communication, etc. The subconscious mind is huge. It has access to all the ideas generated by the conscious mind. It also knows what kind of data might be relevant when it comes to processing the data, which might lead to the creation of a new idea. I think you at least face the subconscious mind when you are on the drug! What do you expect to find? Wonder!

Spin Twice - What’s Wrong With Me?



Spin Twice - Tidal Wave

Evolution!

Gary Moore - The Loner Cover by Tina S



Gary Moore - The Loner

Ludwig van Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata ( 3rd Movement ) Tina S Cover



Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata (3rd Movement)

Obviously, I am sure that many people in philosophy circles would scorn the process superstition. For those who pray, it is to whichever God one believes in but prayer is central to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. — Jack Cummins

That is a tricky business since you are doomed if you don't believe in the correct God!

Ludwig Van Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" performed by Eric Henderson



Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata

The Alan Parsons Project - I Robot

The Alan Parsons Project - Lucifer

I think we know consciousness is there for a similar reason. — Patterner

Consciousness, to me, is the ability of the mind to experience, so we cannot measure it. We cannot measure consciousness if it is used as a synonym of experience as well.

Consciousness isn't explained by the physical properties of the universe. — Patterner

Sure. It is the basic assumption of physicalism that an electron, for example, doesn't experience.

Something we can't detect with all our sciences is there. — Patterner

The mind, although it is present, is a light substance, so we cannot detect it, at least at the current stage of scientific development.

This is so different from the idea of a personal relationship with God which is held by many religious believers. The idea of prayer only makes sense from that perspective. — Jack Cummins

And to which God should one pray?

Estas Tonne - Fusion

Estas Tonne - Golden Dragon Internal Flight

God is defined as the first creator. God does not matter when it comes to a normal life since it seems that He left us on our own.

I'm suggesting we need a new version of science. All our sciences use the physical to explore the physical. — Patterner

We are dealing with an anomaly, so-called experience, within physicalism. I agree that we need to discard physicalism/materialism. We at least need two different substances, the so-called experiencer and the object of experience, if you want to describe the phenomenon of experience coherently.

Freedom of indifference and freedom for excellence are incompatible theories. — Bob Ross

I don't understand why they are incompatible. I can choose to always do right, given the fact that there are at least two right options available to choose from; otherwise, no decision is involved, since I have only one choice. At the same time, I can choose to do wrong. I am a free agent in the end.

whereas if one accepts freedom of indifference, then God is and is the only possibly perfectly unfree being because He cannot will what is bad (or, depending on the view, He may not be able to do otherwise whatsoever). — Bob Ross

That is a very odd position, but granting it, then why did God create creatures with the ability to do contrary?

Yes, but the goal is to explain the relevant data without multiplying entities without necessity; not come up with the simplest answer. — Bob Ross

You are introducing unnecessary substances.

A conscious being, as I understand it, has a qualitative experience—qualia--such that there is something to be them experiencing the world. In a literal sense, this would require a being with complexity: with parts to facilitate a mediated interpretation of reality. — Bob Ross

No, God can be simple and yet experience everything. He just needs to be omnipresent.
.

Because His experience of His experience is an experience. So if He has to experience His experiences, then He would also have to experience His experience of His experience and so on. — Bob Ross

We perceive a substance when we experience something. The same applies to God, so no regress is involved.

Mari Samuelsen: Vivaldi - "Summer" from Four Seasons

Ana Vidović plays J.S. Bach - Partita in E-major

I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee. — AmadeusD

Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too?

You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto! — AmadeusD

I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug.

So, since the subconscious mind is not conscious (by definition) consciousness is not required for the creation of ideas? — wonderer1

Thinking is about working with ideas to create new ideas. Thinking, therefore, is a conscious activity. Therefore, the subconscious mind is conscious as well if it can create a new idea since it has to think.

Estas Tonne - The Song of the Golden Dragon

Paco de Lucia - Entre dos aguas

Now you've shifted the goal post, from creating new ideas, to being conscious of new ideas. — wonderer1

I didn't shift anything, considering my first reply and second reply to you.

Why think consciousness of an idea is necessary for an idea to be created? — wonderer1

That is true, given the definition of an idea as a mental event.

Consider the experience of having an epiphany, where one becomes conscious of a new idea which developed subconsciously. — wonderer1

Both the conscious and subconscious minds can create a new idea.

AI is not conscious, for sure, so it cannot experience ideas. AI's output has no meaning to AI as well. Ideas, meaning, thoughts, etc., are conscious things, and they are shared among conscious things. You can try it yourself: Define the idea as a mental event to AI and ask it if it can create a new idea.

Yes, MoK appears to be overlooking this distinction I have made and collapsing the discussion into ‘free will’. — Bob Ross

I am a free agent Bob, so I have freedom of indifference and freedom of excellence. Are you saying that God does not have freedom of indifference and therefore cannot sin? If yes, why did God create creatures with the ability to sin?

How does ChatGPT do it? — wonderer1

Ideas are mental events that only conscious things can perceive. Ideas, therefore, are not shared by AI. So, AI cannot create ideas.

This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word. — AmadeusD

So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind?

There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. — AmadeusD

But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered.

That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood. — AmadeusD

I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating?

Which makes this, also, exactly wrong. — AmadeusD

Why?

What is our brain made of? Literal ideas? That doesn't make sense. — Manuel

Ideas are another anomaly in physicalism. How could they be created by the brain? How could we talk about them? etc.

Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. — AmadeusD

Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position.

I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment. — AmadeusD

I mean, if they are intelligent entities and can answer questions and continue conversations, etc., then why do you consider them to be unreal? There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions. I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers.

You need to click on the camera icon in the list of icons above, then paste the link.

Ana Vidovic plays Asturias by Isaac Albéniz

The Trinity argument I gave presupposes a classical theistic sense of God, which most notably does not experience: God is not conscious in the same sense we are. He does not have subjective experience. — Bob Ross

My model is simpler since it requires only one substance. To be honest, I cannot comprehend your God. Is your God unconscious?

He knows Himself: He does not ‘experience’ Himself. — Bob Ross

How could he know if He is unconscious? You are unconscious when you don't experience anything.

Also, this idea of Him knowing/experiencing His knowledge/experience leads to an infinite regression. — Bob Ross

How? I even have certain knowledge. I cannot experience all my knowledge at once, but only a small part of it at any given moment. I think that is because I am a conscious mind with a limited memory. The subconscious mind, however, has a huge memory. Therefore, I can conceive a God whose Knowledge is present to Him through experience.

We don't know if particles have feeling or not. There is no evidence that they do, but there's no evidence that they lack it either. — Manuel

If particles experience, then we are not dealing with physicalism.

Well, the point ought to be simple, show me an example of someone or something thinking or experiencing anything without a brain. If that can be done, then the "non-physical" proposal can be taken seriously. — Manuel

I don't know about thinking, but there are examples of NDEs that refer to experiencing certain things which is impossible, given the circumstances, including that there is no brain activity.

We have irreducible particles, such as electrons and quarks, each has a set of properties, such as mass, charge, etc. These properties determine how these particles behave. Their behavior, however, is lawful. These particles do not experience anything at all. That is all about physicalism. According to its believers, experience is something extra to physicalism, emerging only under certain conditions, such as when a living brain is present.

I was unable to follow that - you seem to think an idea emerges from a sentence, rather then a sentence expressing an idea. — Banno

In you, an idea emerges when you read a sentence. Ideas to me are irreducible mental events.

Let's assume that there are at least two substances for the sake of discussion: soul and body, for example. We say that these substances are independent if they share no properties in common; otherwise, they are dependent, hence interacting with each other. There is, however, a little problem here: Could we somehow measure the presence of the soul when the person is alive, accepting that the soul and the body are interacting? The answer to this is no if we accept that the soul is a light substance, by light I mean its effect is beyond the precision of our instruments.

I have to say that NDEs are a serious anomaly in physicalism. So we minimally need two substances to explain NDEs and life coherently.

Anyhow, my point in that post was not about NDE. That is my own objection to physicalism.

Dead people don't experience, according to physicalism. The experience is a feature of alive things. So, it is on and off depending on whether we are dealing with a living thing or a dead thing.

Of course, the phenomenon experience is distinct from matter. That is one thing. I am, however, wondering how you could type your thoughts, given that you believe that physicalism can provide an answer to all phenomena?

There is nothing that I don't understand in that post. You asked for a mystery and I gave you one.