I don't see any distinction between "unconscious" and "non-conscious". — Harry Hindu

Let me see if I can show it to you, because it is significant. When you look at the screen, various processes occur that interpret the scene, most of which happen automatically. There is, for example, an 'edge detection' process that identifies shapes that form letters; these are combined into words, and sentences and the significance is grasped. Most of this, most of the time is non-conscious automatic processing, rather like one's fingernails growing, such that one is aware of the screen 'speaking' and not much else - Unenlightened replies to Harry Hindu.

And like one's fingernails, or your average brick, these processes are not unconscious but non-conscious. One would only say that a brick was unconscious if there was some sense in which it might be conscious - if it might wake up.

By contrast, the unconscious is an awareness that is shut off from consciousness, almost as if there were another person in one's head (this is a crude and perhaps inaccurate characterisation). "It" is also living one's life, interfering in one's actions often antagonistic to one's conscious desires and intents.

When this separation is well sealed, one does not notice anything at all; it is when there is the beginnings of an invasion of consciousness by the unconscious that one starts to 'hear voices', 'act out of character' and the like.

This is partly my advancing years, I know, but I do find myself sometimes having had a desire, and satisfied it. Here I am, say, in the kitchen, and the kettle has boiled and there's a teabag in the pot, and all the while I was thinking about J J Gibson (current obsession), yet the kindly creature inside me, or iwhich I am inside, has made the necessary preparations for a pot of Earl grey tea all the same.

One thing I'm on the trail of at the moment is 'familiarity', which I think is related to all this. Sometimes in a strange part of the world one has a feeling - ah! - which clarifies itself as familiarity. I've been here before. There is, it seems, a psychology of such moments: there appear to be different processes at work. One, familiarity, is shared with many other animals who find their way about, make nests, recognise food and so on. The second one - self-reflection - is the human one. Familiarity turns into recollection. (There's a claim different neural networks are at work) Yes, it all makes sense. This is sameness: that's the same corner I turned at last time I was here.

I hope this is an interesting tributary and not a diversion!

I don't see any distinction between "unconscious" and "non-conscious". — Harry Hindu

Let me see if I can show it to you, because it is significant. — unenlightened

I used to like Freud's id, ego, and superego model, along with the conscious and unconscious mind. There is something to say for it as a kind of drama which is acted out on the stage of our life. Lately I have come to doubt the division of sub- vs. un- vs. non- conscious.

The model I have been thinking about lately is that "consciousness is one function among many equals". Most of what goes on in our brains is invisible to us. Not only is 'edge detection' invisible, but so are the detections of horizontal and vertical lines, shape, color and texture recognition, face recognition, phoneme identification, and so on. Proprioception is another of many always on, always background operations. I have zero knowledge of how my brain assembled the sequence of words in this paragraph, or coordinated finger movements with the flow of thought.

Clearly our brains are aware of a great deal more than our conscious function is aware of. If not, we would have crashed our cars, bicycles, or bodies long ago.

What is called "the subconscious" is just more of the many invisible, background operations that make up a person. We are not aware of these background operations because there is no need for us to try to coordinate, manage, control, or suppress them.

Perhaps in dreaming our conscious minds obtain a glimpse into these background operations. It isn't that "horrible things are revealed which can otherwise not be faced" (Freud) but rather we (possibly) get a glimpse of the way reality is perceived, or stored, or processed in the usually invisible background systems.

Well, if it's always background, how do we know it exists? Research of course. Investigating simpler brains, and investigating human minds that have malfunctioned. A woman I know had a stroke in the visual cortex of her brain. Her visual experience was extremely distorted. She couldn't see the window in her hospital room; instead she reported a horizontal bar of light. She could identify the color of the walls (a variety of beige-yellow), but not that the walls were plain (no decorations, calendars, etc.) or that they composed of rectangles.

People who have stroke-caused aphasia (inability to produce language) can often swear articulately. Apparently cursing is handled in a different background system than ordinary language.

Let me see if I can show it to you, because it is significant. When you look at the screen, various processes occur that interpret the scene, most of which happen automatically. There is, for example, an 'edge detection' process that identifies shapes that form letters; these are combined into words, and sentences and the significance is grasped. Most of this, most of the time is non-conscious automatic processing, rather like one's fingernails growing, such that one is aware of the screen 'speaking' and not much else - Unenlightened replies to Harry Hindu. — unenlightened

The model I have been thinking about lately is that "consciousness is one function among many equals". Most of what goes on in our brains is invisible to us. Not only is 'edge detection' invisible, but so are the detections of horizontal and vertical lines, shape, color and texture recognition, face recognition, phoneme identification, and so on. Proprioception is another of many always on, always background operations. I have zero knowledge of how my brain assembled the sequence of words in this paragraph, or coordinated finger movements with the flow of thought. — Bitter Crank

I think you both are confusing consciousness with intent. None of these things happen when we are unconscious. Edge detection never happens when we are asleep, or otherwise unconscious. It seems to happen without any prior intent, but we are still conscious. Making distinctions seems to be what consciousness itself is. Intent is something else.

We should also think about whether or not these other processes you mentioned were always exhibited without any prior intention. We all know how we learn new things and over time, we don't need to focus on doing them when we become proficient with them. Newborns can't make these kinds of distinctions because their sense of vision is poor. It takes practice to learn how to focus your eyes and coordinate them in order to acquire a sensible image. Now, as adults, such things are "child's play".

Another aspect we should all take into account is the possibility that there are other "consciousnesses" in our brain. How do we know that these other processes happen without a central executive making sense out of what is happening in the brain in it's specific module of the brain?

None of these things happen when we are unconscious. Edge detection never happens when we are asleep, or otherwise unconscious. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure where you are getting your certainty about what happens when we are unconscious. But never mind that. But you are continuing to disagree with me about a distinction I have made without understanding it. Edge detection is non-conscious, I am saying, like a brick is non-conscious. 'We' may or may not be conscious of a brick from time to time, in the background or the foreground. Part of the process of seeing a brick is detecting its edges, but 'detecting the edges' does not itself see anything, nor does the brick;I see the brick by amongst other things, detecting its edges. All of which, I don't think we disagree much about.

But then I want to talk about the Freudian unconscious, which is not so-called because it is like the brick or the automatic process of edge-detection. On the contrary, it is active, wilful, aware. But it is called the unconscious because the 'I' or 'we' that pontificates is unaware of its existence and active influence. This is the controversial bit.

So this is why Freud was interested in dreams, because when 'we' are unconscious, the unconscious is still awake and active.

I think you both are confusing consciousness with intent. — Harry Hindu

We are not. Intentions exist, of course. That's how it came to pass that some part of my brain is writing this sentence. It disagreed with you. (It's the pangyrus located under the anterior sulcus of the superior lobe.)

Judging by EEGs and other scans, the brain seems to be always on. We know from these scans that various functions are scattered throughout the brain, and are coordinated. We can see this happening (sort of--it's not like an annotated animation) on fMRI views of the brain at work. The brain is always on, doing all kinds of stuff that are critical to our existence, like breathing, way finding, not falling over, thinking, memory, and a batch of other stuff that we may or may not be aware of.

As I said, the ego - the conscious mind - the 'I' that speaks, the 'I' we address in other people (unless we are trying to manipulate them by going around the 'I' altogether) is just one of those functions. We tend to think of it as the SUPREME function, but it isn't. It's just the Front Office. It's the Public Relations Department. The 'conscious mind' does not manage the brain, the mostly invisible brain manages the conscious mind. The conscious mind is often the last one to find out what it is going to do next, paradoxically. It's a paradox because we think the conscious mind is 'in charge'. It's not.

I'm using the term 'invisible' to get away from the loaded term, 'unconscious'. The 'invisible' or 'non-conscious mind is represented, sort of, by the 9/10ths of the iceberg that is below the water line.

The feeling of hunger isn't a desire. It's a casual disposition. I don't desire to feel hunger, I am hungry and as a consequence I desire to eat. Once I desire to eat, I intend to do things. That's why desires and beliefs are normative.

I think we experience both: awareness and attention. I attend a dog barking at me, I'm aware of my surrounding around me. Everything has this foreground/background distinction, it's the essence of a gestalt shift too.

So, I think without being attuned to something explicitly, we can still make a decision implicitly. You just have to at least at some point have been aware of forgoing the decision. Of course one isn't aware of all nuance details they do implicitly in any actions.

The feeling of hunger isn't a desire. It's a casual disposition. I don't desire to feel hunger, I am hungry and as a consequence I desire to eat. Once I desire to eat, I intend to do things. That's why desires and beliefs are normative. — Marty

I don't agree. I think you interpret the feeling of hunger as the desire to eat. But you can still have the desire to eat yet intend not to eat, that's will power.

Well, I think your interlocutor here can just say something to the effect of the desire is equivalent to the will insofar as one has to choose to desire, instead of being casually disposed to hunger. Then it just seems like you're in an impasse. How do you convince them? How do you figure this to not be a semantic dispute?

Obviously a ascetic can tell you he does not desire a loaf of bread even though he's hungry. But you would just say that he desires in virute of being hungry.

Well, I think your interlocutor here can just say something to the effect of the desire is equivalent to the will insofar as one has to choose to desire, instead of being casually disposed to hunger. — Marty

This is what I am saying is wrong. I am saying that one does not choose to desire. Desire is type of feeling we get whether we want it or not. We can choose things which will make the desire go away, such as when we choose to eat in the cases where the desire is hunger, but we do not choose to desire. Even though we often use "desire" in a way such as we choose to desire specific things, this would be a misrepresentation of what I am referring to with "desire". So we should not create ambiguity, and equivocate with the meaning of "desire".

How do you figure this to not be a semantic dispute? — Marty

It is a semantic dispute, but it only takes on that character because you insist on using "desire" in a different way from me. But my way is well supported, by the dictionary. So if you would respect it, instead of simply denying it for the sake of creating an argument, then we could proceed.

The common usage of the word is used ambiguously, MU. Surely you're not suggesting that the dictionary is the arbitrator of philosophical language?

, I am hungry and as a consequence I desire to eat. Once I desire to eat, I intend to do things. That's why desires and beliefs are normative. — Marty

I think its a little more complicated than that. For example, as I am almost 60, I have no desire to marry again or reproduce. However, I still occasionally find myself attracted to a girl and desiring to court her, than feeling conflicted about it. For this the Freudian model makes sense, as in my superego I have no desire, but in my id, I do. Or maybe it is habit. I don't know, all I know is that the desire makes no rational sense but I still experience it.

I'm not seeing the problem, Ernestm. Being conflicted about your desires doesn't make the desires unconscious, it just means you have conflicting desires.

I don't buy into an "ID" as being the "base-level" of our self, as if there's some sort of primordial urge (ID) that implicitly supervenes over our conscience (Super-Ego), and then the conscience supervenes explicitly through sheer act of will-power. The triadic theory seems to put ethics as something over and above the passions, and seems to put practical engagement (Ego) over and above the passions/"bodily needs" (ID). They just seem to me to be equiprimordial.

The common usage of the word is used ambiguously, MU. Surely you're not suggesting that the dictionary is the arbitrator of philosophical language? — Marty

Yes, I know there is ambiguity in the common usage of the word, that's the case in any word which has more than one definition, which is most all words. I suggested that we adhere to one particular definition, and referred to the dictionary to claim that this particular definition is in fact a definition which is acceptable by the majority of the population.

You've refused my proposition, so I can only conclude that your demand to maintain ambiguity is the manifestation of an intent to argue by equivocation.

I'm not sure where you are getting your certainty about what happens when we are unconscious. — unenlightened

I'm not sure where you are getting your information about what happens when we are unconscious either. The only place you could be getting it is from your consciousness! How is it that you know anything if you are never conscious? When have you learned anything while being non-conscious, or unconscious?

But you are continuing to disagree with me about a distinction I have made without understanding it. Edge detection is non-conscious, I am saying, like a brick is non-conscious. 'We' may or may not be conscious of a brick from time to time, in the background or the foreground. Part of the process of seeing a brick is detecting its edges, but 'detecting the edges' does not itself see anything, nor does the brick;I see the brick by amongst other things, detecting its edges. All of which, I don't think we disagree much about. — unenlightened

It seems the other way around to me - that you aren't understanding me and it's obvious because you didn't reply to my whole post (cherry-picking). You keep talking about what appears in consciousness (edge-detection) and saying that it is an non-conscious process. When I'm conscious - and only when I'm conscious, do I detect edges. You can try to detect edges when you are asleep. Good Luck.

What you are saying that is missing is your will to detect edges. It seems automatic - that edges just appear - without any power of the will preceding it - unlike the process of lifting your arm when you decide to do so. This took willpower when you were an infant. It took a coordinated effort of you focusing your eyes together and your brain creating new neural paths as you learn. Detecting edges took effort until finally you had enough practice at doing it that it now seems automatic.

But then I want to talk about the Freudian unconscious, which is not so-called because it is like the brick or the automatic process of edge-detection. On the contrary, it is active, wilful, aware. But it is called the unconscious because the 'I' or 'we' that pontificates is unaware of its existence and active influence. This is the controversial bit.

So this is why Freud was interested in dreams, because when 'we' are unconscious, the unconscious is still awake and active. — unenlightened

Again, how do you know that the unconscious is willful and aware? In what way? It can't be aware in the way that we are when we are conscious because that would defeat the purpose of consciousness. If the unconscious is active, willful, and aware, then what use is consciousness? Consciousness must solve problems that the unconsciousness can't or else it would have never evolved in the first place.

Your description of the unconsciousness seems to correlate with my last paragraph in my previous post, where I said that other parts of the brain could have symbolism and representation going on in order to perform it's tasks as it needs information about the environment and the body all at once in order to make any "decision" about what to do.

As I said, the ego - the conscious mind - the 'I' that speaks, the 'I' we address in other people (unless we are trying to manipulate them by going around the 'I' altogether) is just one of those functions. We tend to think of it as the SUPREME function, but it isn't. It's just the Front Office. It's the Public Relations Department. The 'conscious mind' does not manage the brain, the mostly invisible brain manages the conscious mind. The conscious mind is often the last one to find out what it is going to do next, paradoxically. It's a paradox because we think the conscious mind is 'in charge'. It's not. — Bitter Crank

But then why do I experience having control of certain aspects of my body. My legs don't start walking unless I will it. There is top-down processing happening, and it seems that there is also bottom-up processing going on as there are things that happen in consciousness that will did not precede in making it happen - like breathing. But consciousness is where I'm aware of this stuff happening. Could it be said that I could be aware of these things without being conscious? If so, how?

You keep talking about what appears in consciousness (edge-detection) and saying that it is an non-conscious process. When I'm conscious - and only when I'm conscious, do I detect edges. — Harry Hindu

When I am conscious I detect edges. We agree about that much.
When I am conscious I can touch my nose with my thumb. I bet you can too. I do not, however think that my nose or my thumb is conscious, merely sensitive. Likewise, Ido not suppose that the visual process by which I detect edges in the visual field is itself conscious, merely sensitive to edge like variations in the visual field. That is all I am saying about edge detection.

Again, how do you know that the unconscious is willful and aware? In what way? — Harry Hindu

In the first instance, I am talking about what Freud meant by the unconscious, and that is why I have been at some pains to point out that the unconscious of Freudian is not the same thing as all the stuff that happens automatically, learned or innate. But many people think Freud was talking crap, so to them I would say the following.

Well I know that when I am asleep I am unconscious. And I also know that when I am asleep I have experiences, which I call dreams, in which I experience being active, having feelings and so on. It seems to follow that there is some form of awareness in me while I am unconscious. There are other indications too, but leave it at that for now.

But then why do I experience having control of certain aspects of my body. — Harry Hindu

Because "you" are in control of your arms and your legs. It's just that "you" extend beyond the function of your conscious mind. Besides, your conscious mind doesn't actually do much in the way of controlling motor functions. Do you know how to send a series of coordinated nerve impulses to the various muscles of your body so that you can walk? No, you don't. I don't either. Walking is controlled by your motor cortex (it's on the top side of your brain) and the motor cortex is not conscious.

There is top-down processing happening, and it seems that there is also bottom-up processing going on as there are things that happen in consciousness that will did not precede in making it happen - like breathing. — Harry Hindu

Breathing, blinking, heart beat, etc. are controlled in the brain stem--one of the most 'ancient' structures of the brain. There are small clusters of cells that keep your heart ticking away, that make sure you keep breathing--until one fine day they don't, and then you're dead. There is also a small cluster of cells in the brain stem that send you into the oblivion of sleep and another cluster of cells that wake you up. When people have strokes that wreck this wakefulness center, they don't wake up.

The deep breathing of yoga is effective because it is a practice of your conscious mind over-riding something that is normally automatic and unconscious. You have to consciously decide to "breathe deeply" and selectively relax muscle groups.

But consciousness is where I'm aware of this stuff happening. Could it be said that I could be aware of these things without being conscious? If so, how? — Harry Hindu

When you are conscious you are aware that you are walking around, and you will that you walk to some particular destination (like to the mailbox). But your conscious mind is not in control of the physical details of walking.

the motor cortex is not conscious — Bitter Crank

Let me clarify: The motor cortex, which operates the motion of the body, is fully aware of what your body is doing--otherwise it couldn't successfully move you around. The cortex is 'conscious' of proprioception, for instance. It has to be aware of that in order to keep you upright while you are walking.

The visual cortex in the rear of your brain is aware of the impulses coming from the retina. It processes those signals, and puts together a cohesive picture of the world--for your conscious mind, among other parts, to enjoy and make use of.

There are various parts of the brain that are aware of what they are doing, but your conscious mind isn't aware of them, most of the time. The enteric nervous system operates the digestive track--a very complicated batch of processes that your central nervous system is mostly (and happily) unaware of. You don't want regular dispatches from the bowels about what is going on there. When you do hear from the gut, it's usually bad news--like something is going to be expelled in the very near future whether it is convenient for you, or not.

So, various parts of your brain are aware and interacting in ways that your conscious mind is not a part of. That's a very good thing, because if your conscious mind were aware of all that stuff, you would have no time left to think.

One thing we forget, is that we aren't the one talking, we're the primate ignoring everything around them to listen. You thought, saw, tasted, and felt many things, some were agreeable, and some were not. Some things funny, others upsetting, some things frightening, and others pleasurable.

Consciousness is actually pretty much entirely confined to an autobiographical narrative. Things were significant to the extent that they fit into the narrative, and aren't even like how we remember them, even when we do. Like, people with the best memories in the world, and can memorize lots of information quickly (photographic memories aren't a thing) do so by narrativizing the information, by taking all of the things to be remembered, and turning them into a story.

Almost everything we forgot about, or at least wasn't significant enough to be featured in the narrative, so we forget about it, or didn't even consciously notice it at all, nor properly recognize it in the first place. Doesn't mean that it had no affect on you, nor that you don't remember it on any level at all.

When I am conscious I detect edges. We agree about that much.
When I am conscious I can touch my nose with my thumb. I bet you can too. I do not, however think that my nose or my thumb is conscious, merely sensitive. Likewise, Ido not suppose that the visual process by which I detect edges in the visual field is itself conscious, merely sensitive to edge like variations in the visual field. That is all I am saying about edge detection. — unenlightened

I don't see how your example applies. In consciousness you are aware of the will to touch the nose, and the movement of your arm and hand towards your nose and the sensation of the two touching. In edge-detection I am conscious of the will to focus my attention on a certain area of my visual field, bringing it into focus, thereby clarifying the edges of the things before me. I've done these things countless times before and I can do them with very little effort. This was not the case when I was an infant. I had to learn how to focus my eyes and coordinate my arms and legs by observing them and how I focused my attention on them. So how did these abilities go from consciously learning how to do these things, to now having the ability to do them essentially without thinking about it?

In the first instance, I am talking about what Freud meant by the unconscious, and that is why I have been at some pains to point out that the unconscious of Freudian is not the same thing as all the stuff that happens automatically, learned or innate. But many people think Freud was talking crap, so to them I would say the following.

Well I know that when I am asleep I am unconscious. And I also know that when I am asleep I have experiences, which I call dreams, in which I experience being active, having feelings and so on. It seems to follow that there is some form of awareness in me while I am unconscious. There are other indications too, but leave it at that for now. — unenlightened

But is it accurate to say that you are "aware" in your sleep. You aren't aware of anything going on outside of your body and you aren't even aware that you are dreaming. Dreams could just be hallucinations as we know that sensory deprivation for an extended period can cause hallucinations. Or, it could be similar to day-dreaming (or letting our imagination run away), but without the being aware of the rest of the world, which can make the dream more convincing and explains why we don't know that we are dreaming - like we do when we are awake.

Because "you" are in control of your arms and your legs. It's just that "you" extend beyond the function of your conscious mind. Besides, your conscious mind doesn't actually do much in the way of controlling motor functions. Do you know how to send a series of coordinated nerve impulses to the various muscles of your body so that you can walk? No, you don't. I don't either. Walking is controlled by your motor cortex (it's on the top side of your brain) and the motor cortex is not conscious. — Bitter Crank

But that's the thing. I obviously do know how to send a series of coordinated nerve impulses to various muscles in my body so that I can walk. This is especially true if the "I" extends beyond my conscious mind. Consciousness, after all, is a model of my body's interactions with the world. What I experience is a representation of me sending a series of coordinated nerve impulses to various muscles in my body so that I can walk, which is my will to do so and the conscious knowledge that I am walking.

It also stands that at one point in my early life, I couldn't walk. Are you saying that "I" learned how to walk, or my motor cortex did? Is it possible for something unconscious to learn? If so, how? How are prior experiences stored and recalled for applying them to current situations? What form do they take?

Breathing, blinking, heart beat, etc. are controlled in the brain stem--one of the most 'ancient' structures of the brain. There are small clusters of cells that keep your heart ticking away, that make sure you keep breathing--until one fine day they don't, and then you're dead. There is also a small cluster of cells in the brain stem that send you into the oblivion of sleep and another cluster of cells that wake you up. When people have strokes that wreck this wakefulness center, they don't wake up. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but I can focus on each breath I take and and change the rate of my breathing. The same for my blinking and heart-rate. I could do the same with walking to my mailbox. I could focus my attention on each step and the movements I am making. But I don't do this normally because it is boring. I'd rather think about what might be in the mailbox or the reason I'm changing my rate of the other processes that are normally involuntary. How is it that these changes wouldn't normally happen if I weren't conscious? Consciousness must have some kind of control over other functions that we don't normally think of.

Let me clarify: The motor cortex, which operates the motion of the body, is fully aware of what your body is doing--otherwise it couldn't successfully move you around. The cortex is 'conscious' of proprioception, for instance. It has to be aware of that in order to keep you upright while you are walking.

The visual cortex in the rear of your brain is aware of the impulses coming from the retina. It processes those signals, and puts together a cohesive picture of the world--for your conscious mind, among other parts, to enjoy and make use of.

There are various parts of the brain that are aware of what they are doing, but your conscious mind isn't aware of them, most of the time. The enteric nervous system operates the digestive track--a very complicated batch of processes that your central nervous system is mostly (and happily) unaware of. You don't want regular dispatches from the bowels about what is going on there. When you do hear from the gut, it's usually bad news--like something is going to be expelled in the very near future whether it is convenient for you, or not.

So, various parts of your brain are aware and interacting in ways that your conscious mind is not a part of. That's a very good thing, because if your conscious mind were aware of all that stuff, you would have no time left to think. — Bitter Crank

Is it accurate to say that these things are aware though? Doesn't that require a priori knowledge that some bit of information represents something else - that the electrical signal means something other than just being an electrical signal of a certain strength and duration? After all, awareness is always of something. It doesn't make sense to say that something is just aware.

But is it accurate to say that you are "aware" in your sleep. You aren't aware of anything going on outside of your body and you aren't even aware that you are dreaming. Dreams could just be hallucinations as we know that sensory deprivation for an extended period can cause hallucinations. Or, it could be similar to day-dreaming (or letting our imagination run away), but without the being aware of the rest of the world, which can make the dream more convincing and explains why we don't know that we are dreaming - like we do when we are awake. — Harry Hindu

One must be aware of a hallucination or a day or night dream in order to have it, no?

You are only aware of this after the fact. It is easier to recognize a day-dream because you have the outer world imposing it's existence on you when you are conscious. Hallucinations are made aware of when others you are with don't have the reaction you are expecting when you tell them what you see or hear.

When you are hallucinating or dreaming you can't say that you are actually aware of anything because the aboutness of the experience doesn't refer to anything other than the firing of some neurons. But we aren't even aware of that most of the time either. ;)

You are only aware of this after the fact — Harry Hindu

How can you be aware after the fact without having been aware of the fact? Stop making shit up. If I hallucinate pink elephants in the garden, then I am aware of pink elephants in the garden even if they are not there. How the hell can I hallucinate pink elephants without being aware of anything? I hallucinate pink elephants, therefore I am.

It also stands that at one point in my early life, I couldn't walk. Are you saying that "I" learned how to walk, or my motor cortex did? — Harry Hindu

Learning how to walk when you were transitioning from crawling around on the floor to standing up to taking steps was DIFFICULT. If you had to learn how to walk as an adult (as happens to people who have had brain injuries) it would be VERY DIFFICULT.

Yes, but I can focus on each breath I take and and change the rate of my breathing. — Harry Hindu

That's a major hunk of yoga, right there. The reason why consciously controlled breathing is psychologically significant is that the conscious part of your brain normally doesn't deal with breathing. When you are thinking about controlling your breathing you have to stop thinking about your 401K, or whatever...

What I experience is a representation of me sending a series of coordinated nerve impulses to various muscles in my body so that I can walk, which is my will to do so and the conscious knowledge that I am walking. — Harry Hindu

Yes, your consciousness constructs that representation. But that representation and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. The part of your brain that actually coordinates movement isn't accessible to the conscious mind, but (apparently) the motor cortex has access to the conscious mind--else it wouldn't know where you wanted to go.

OK, like I said, I'm "playing with this idea". I'm about at the end of what little I know to play with. I now need the assistance of a research neurologist. Do you happen to have one handy?

I don't buy into an "ID" as being the "base-level" of our self, as if there's some sort of primordial urge (ID) that implicitly supervenes over our conscience (Super-Ego), and then the conscience supervenes explicitly through sheer act of will-power. The triadic theory seems to put ethics as something over and above the passions, and seems to put practical engagement (Ego) over and above the passions/"bodily needs" (ID). They just seem to me to be equiprimordial. — Marty

It's not really about 'buying into' anything. As with all scientific models, it is only a model, and its value is in how well it helps explain states and events.

How can you be aware after the fact without having been aware of the fact? Stop making shit up. If I hallucinate pink elephants in the garden, then I am aware of pink elephants in the garden even if they are not there. How the hell can I hallucinate pink elephants without being aware of anything? I hallucinate pink elephants, therefore I am. — unenlightened

It seems that it is you that is "making shit up". If not, then please explain how the sentence, "If I hallucinate pink elephants in the garden, then I am aware of pink elephants in the garden even if they are not there." makes any sense. How is it that you can be aware of something that isn't there? That, by definition, is what is called, "making shit up".

It also stands that at one point in my early life, I couldn't walk. Are you saying that "I" learned how to walk, or my motor cortex did? — Harry Hindu

Learning how to walk when you were transitioning from crawling around on the floor to standing up to taking steps was DIFFICULT. If you had to learn how to walk as an adult (as happens to people who have had brain injuries) it would be VERY DIFFICULT. — Bitter Crank

I don't see how this answers my question.

Yes, but I can focus on each breath I take and and change the rate of my breathing. — Harry Hindu


That's a major hunk of yoga, right there. The reason why consciously controlled breathing is psychologically significant is that the conscious part of your brain normally doesn't deal with breathing. When you are thinking about controlling your breathing you have to stop thinking about your 401K, or whatever... — Bitter Crank

This also doesn't answer my question. 0 for two?

Yes, your consciousness constructs that representation. But that representation and 50¢ won't get you a cup of coffee. The part of your brain that actually coordinates movement isn't accessible to the conscious mind, but (apparently) the motor cortex has access to the conscious mind--else it wouldn't know where you wanted to go. — Bitter Crank

If my consciousness constructs that representation, then the construction of consciousness would be in consciousness. Does that make any sense to you? It makes more sense to say that that the part of your brain that coordinates movements is the conscious mind, as I wouldn't be walking if I wasn't conscious. The sensation you feel and the experiences of control that you have actually are you controlling your body and it's movements. To say that you don't know how, but your motor cortex does, doesn't make any sense, especially if your definition of "I" or "me" includes what extends beyond my conscious mind - an inconsistency that I pointed out and that you failed to address in your last post

It seems that it is you that is "making shit up". If not, then please explain how the sentence, "If I hallucinate pink elephants in the garden, then I am aware of pink elephants in the garden even if they are not there." makes any sense. How is it that you can be aware of something that isn't there? That, by definition, is what is called, "making shit up". — Harry Hindu

Yes, a hallucination is making shit up, and if one is unconscious of any shit, made up or real, one is not hallucinating. I cannot hallucinate X without being aware of X, because not to be aware of X is not to experience X, whether X is made up or real. To have an hallucination, or a dream, or a veridical experience is to be aware of something.

It's not really about 'buying into' anything. As with all scientific models, it is only a model, and its value is in how well it helps explain states and events.

(Y)

, I'm just trying to make you aware that you are misusing the word, "aware". If what you are saying is true, then when you see a mirage, you are "aware" of a pool of water. When you discover that it is just an illusion, and there actually is no pool of water, then you would probably say, "I'm "aware" of a mirage.", which is saying at the same time that "I wasn't aware of a pool of water." It was only after the fact - after more facts were acquired about the experience - that you discovered that it wasn't a pool of water. The fact is that we make mistakes in interpreting our experiences. Some experiences are of being aware, some are hallucinatory or illusory - cases where we misinterpret an experience as being one in the Awareness category.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, aware is defined as having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge. From my viewpoint, when you go running towards nothing at all jabbering about how thirsty you are, or you point to empty space and and say, "awww look at the cute pink elephants!", you aren't exhibiting any truthful realization, perception, or knowledge. Actually, from my viewpoint, you are ignorant or having a hallucination. If I have the true vantage point, then isn't more accurate to say that I am aware, while you are simply ignorant?