Consciousness

Descartes loves you for this one, Doobah.

Yes?
Even though x may affect y, x may not be aware of y at all.
If there is doubt for this action, then there is reason to believe that said action is possible, else there would be no room for doubt.

Sure. Aristoddler hit the nail on the head "Even though x may affect y, x may not be aware of y at all."

If you've ever been a drinker, nothing could be more obvious. Chemical amusement aside, I think we all go through this - acting and not being aware of our action. How often do we find ourselves driving, lost in thought and paying no attention to driving, suddenly remembering that we are driving when we arrive at our destination. Scary as this example is, we all have this sort of experience. We are all capable of not paying attention to what we do.

I just finished reading about Frueds discoveries in 'A Graphic Guide to the Father of Psychoanalysis' and the amount of control our mind has over us seems astounding to me, Thomas' comments seem to highlight a level of uncontroll we run into everyday. Are there a lot of freedom issues raised here?

I would go to an atomic level and say that subconsciously/unconsciously electron (x) 'knows' it is being exchanged (y). I say this because I find an impossibility in x being capable of y and not finding an awareness of y, it must 'know' that exchange is what it must do. The question of consciousness is raised here, and I would doubt Didymos' statement in that the mind 'knows' subconsciously that the heart must beat / one must drive unto destination.

Are we free to slow/stop our heart?
Or to quit ritual habits?


Difficult questions which are kind of answered by the fact that it is possible to arrange to have one's heart stopped, and we can come to terms with ritual habits and engage in the discouraging of them, but rather more on point they do slip 'out of mind' and into the subconscious more frequently than we might prefer.

Once when I was incredibly stoned I thought that my heart had nearly stopped, and that I had to consciously think of starting it up again, I also found ritual difficult to avoid. Whether these are issues of freedom is slightly like an anamorphic philosophical exercise; I think 'freedom' is a distortion of something(s) far less vague and more precise in their manner, although we could probably find freedom in the picture if we perhaps moved our perception of the topic to another angle (perhaps we would find a lack of freedom in x knowing y and doing it). I doubt that I had any freedom not to engage my heart consciously or subconsciously, there is no part of my body that would allow the stopping of the heart without immense struggle.

My answer to the notion of freedom curtailed by subconscious activity is that our subconscious is far more active than our conscious mind and engages our bodies in activities which it has deemed possible/beneficial/desired, so in a way our conscious freedom is curtailed but that does not negate the possibility that the subconscious is aware of freedom and the exercising of freedom.

Hi Everybody!!

:)Is it not really a matter of the focus of awareness, x effecting Y is never quite that simple, cause seldom if ever has just one effect. In order for x to effect a change in y he must bring two or more differing constitutions together in order for some transformation to take place, if those two constitutions are himself as x and y as the other , x has done nothing but arrange the stage for the transformation of y, which in fact should effect the transformation of x in some way. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction--those reactions will get you every time.

Arranging the stage for a relational reactionary transformation, is most often called, human action.

As long as one's existence is relative to something else, how can there be freedom, freedom is to be autonomous, as in not dependent upon relations, which is an impossiblity.

Well I think we can say quite easily that there is no absolute freedom, but I think as a subjective conscious notion freedom is a possibility, especially freedom on an interpersonal/intrapersonal level.

It does seem a struggle to maintain what is clearly a conscious decision to improve ones self, like a diet. There is that constant contradiction between the pleasure principle- 'FOOD!', and the reality principle, which seems to urge more rational behavior. It soon becomes a matter of 'the right stuff', some people can do it some can't... what is the secret*? And the struggle itself represents a huge degree of unfreedom for me, I don't want 'urges' pushing and pulling me. Is possibility a satisfactory answer when there is always the possibility that you can not overcome?


[quote]Once when I was incredibly stoned I thought that my heart had nearly stopped, and that I had to consciously think of starting it up again,[/quote]

*I watched Derren Brown's 'something wicked this way comes' and in that he asphyxiate himself to lower the heart rate to a near stop, he removes the bag (that was over his head) and breathes but then, amazingly, he keeps his heart rate at the snails pace while going about walking, lying and rolling on a bed of broken glass. After the showmanship he sits back down and 'wills' his heart rate and O2 levels back to normal, resulting in a high like no other (apparently). Hypnotism, psychoanalysis and all the related areas seem to suggest there are ways to unlock the sub/unconscious, is the secret to mental liberation here?

[quote]the possibility that the subconscious is aware of freedom and the exercising of freedom.[/quote]

maybe; repression and instinct seems to be a protective mechanism I guess, but their concern on issues like reproduction are not shared by 'me'. I just wish the sub/unconscious didn't always assume it was right... the world changes and so do we, but a part of us is trapped in the past; when things like the Oedipus Complex manifest themselves in society, why aren't the unconscious mechanisms alleviated?

And Boagie ,



How does conscious thought fare in this war of freedom against relational reality? Am I not still free to plan ahead, to set a personal goal which I will reach via relational reality. Sure I am playing the game of relational reality but I have foreseen a free-end which I will aim for, that is only relational to a recognized state of unfreedom. Is personal thought, pondering, discussion of freedom not autonomous?

Dan.

Doobah,

Indeed there is always choice within a given context, and if that is what is being termed freedom, then yes, one's choice of friends within the context of society, is freedom. If with freedom it is defined as autonomy from context however, it is a kind of fairlyland flight of the imagination, nothing to do with the real world.

Interesting stuff... How do we operate on the subconscious?

I think there are tools which allow us access to subconscious gambits and instincts; like in a court room somebody is told to tell the 'truth' hence we can infer from their reactions to stimuli some of what their subconscious is doing - it might be concealing evidence and they might utter "but it's the truth" at some important stage of the proceedings and we can see their faults appearing to show, notably we might ascertain that words are coming out of their mouth over which they have little/no control, simply covering tracks, then we can decipher what the subconscious is thinking (that's if we know all the evidence), and which tracks it is covering, then we can pinpoint exact stimuli which cause the subconscious to explete, and then we might know something about the subconscious. Next we might want to 'cure' this devious nature, in order to avoid future devious happenings, we might infer that everything they say is fed through the consciousness and little control is exercised by the conscious, then we can stimulate the subconscious with crazy tangents - like the game where I say 'p*ssy', you say 'cat', I say 'hat', you say 'top' etc - and the person is hoping/expecting you to say 'vaginal', thus the person is coerced into behaving more consciously.

I would like to point out that consciousness is that upon which can be acted. In that sense "not being aware" of something merely means that one has no logical confirmation of this in the second order, but is consciouss of it in the first order.

First order logic would be consciousness and second order logic self-consciousness in this example.

I hope this helps.

Then is it possible to say that if electron (x) is undergoing/doing exchange (y) with atoms (z) then x must know/be conscious (1st or 2nd order logic) of y and/or z?

X is conscious of it in the logic of the first order; it is acted upon.