A theory of consciousness

Just one thing about dreaming effecting our conscious thoughts if this relevant...dreaming i have been told is our subconscious advising our conscious mind... Is dreaming an act of consciousness and does our subconscious really exist...

I think sub-conscious is the conscious not conscious of.

If it is working without consciousness being aware why is that not amazing?

I find it intriguing that certain things are being diagnosed without my being aware...

Because that is what animals of higher order intellect in the absence of self-awareness are doing all the time. I don't think it is "amazing", not compared to the standard set by conscious thought. But of course this is a value judgement and each to his or her own.



It is intriguing, because it is not immediately apparent, and, as psychology shows us, it can tell us about our conscious behaviour. But it is no more than this; that something is intriguing merely indicates the unknown or unexpected quality of its machinations.

When we cant define consciousness in a valid manner that answers all our questions then inventing other dimensions to even try to understand what it could be we must take more notice of our dreams to try to understand our US....

the subconscious appears to be almost like the reptilian brain a function we dont have to have direct control over..it appears to me the dreams are our conscious minds watching like objective observers our subconscious mind working...We have no control but merely learn the consequences that our sunconscious mind show us..Freedom to explore all avenues of actions without the consequences..

I hope i have not killed this thread it was extremely interesting..

Ive tried but not being an educated philosopher the terminology holds me back and also my inability to deny a souls existance...Im an infected observer that sees the soul as the controlling influence on our subjective world..I can imagine the neurons the brain with its functions but as we cant actualy see the threads of information that ties our consciousness together i put another dimension to the display..You draw pictures that link the sequence of events but they never seems to actual show the consciousness as i could imagine...dont mind me i need a reality check..

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.

Hashem [God] formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.

The Torah offers no systematic definition of a soul; various descriptions of the soul exist in classical rabbinic literature.

It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.

I hope i have not killed this thread it was extremely interesting..

Ok well, from this plea from the darkness I went back, read the entire model and all the replies (yes, my eyes feel strained). I don't know that I have much to substantively add here, but would like to make some comments for consideration, if such are welcome:
[INDENT]On the model: I didn't get the sense that the model was ever indented to explain all concepts for all aspects on all dynamics for the entire 'package' we call the human mind. I found it logical, coherent and relatively well-supported. As a model, I'm also not completely sure that it's a valid criticism that it doesn't have such aspects as perceptional-relativity or action/reaction as center stage. I can't know it's correct, but given what I can reasonably-think I know as well as any basis of rational thought, I think it's plausible and even quite likely.
[/INDENT][INDENT]On the responses: I really get a kick of the axes we grind. Enter each actor, all in turn, to pull out their particular axe-to-grind and hack away at whatever's being discussed. Hermes: We do this a lot for whatever 'itch' each of us wants to constantly scratch. This isn't any real direct criticism on what you've presented, only a reflection of how we look for how our interests might or might not be represented in the thoughts of others.
[/INDENT]Nice model, I wouldn't mind seeing more fleshed out on the dynamics between the various systems as well as more details on each constituent part of the information cycle.

Good stuff. I'd say keep at it - it's a productive and important theory.

Thanks

Yes im guilty as charged..self driven interests as usual i will try to kurb them and be more objective..

I use the word believe with caution..i dont believe in a benevolent god nor do i hope of ever finding one but i do by personal experience have the problem of going against my logic in believing a soul is just possible...I am not an educated man and it is only my experiences that have driven me to look for answers...Debating by the written word is dificult for me and on occassions my lack of education hinders me..The trouble is when you are on a mission it is difficult to keep a clear head and not reject others opinions...The soul as far as i can by logic describe it as ethereal with only the life force of man to tie it to the body...it has the effect of advising the body of its purpose but does not control the ultimate decission the body makes...thats lifes experience and it must experience and learn that its purpose....the subconscious and the conscious in my opinion can be very similar to the relationship i see between the body and soul or the mind and brain....earthly and ethereal ..I will try again to understand your concept i promise..

Ok well, from this plea from the darkness I went back, read the entire model and all the replies (yes, my eyes feel strained). I don't know that I have much to substantively add here, but would like to make some comments for consideration, if such are welcome:[INDENT]On the model: I didn't get the sense that the model was ever indented to explain all concepts for all aspects on all dynamics for the entire 'package' we call the human mind. I found it logical, coherent and relatively well-supported. As a model, I'm also not completely sure that it's a valid criticism that it doesn't have such aspects as perceptional-relativity or action/reaction as center stage. I can't know it's correct, but given what I can reasonably-think I know as well as any basis of rational thought, I think it's plausible and even quite likely.
[/INDENT][INDENT]On the responses: I really get a kick of the axes we grind. Enter each actor, all in turn, to pull out their particular axe-to-grind and hack away at whatever's being discussed. Hermes: We do this a lot for whatever 'itch' each of us wants to constantly scratch. This isn't any real direct criticism on what you've presented, only a reflection of how we look for how our interests might or might not be represented in the thoughts of others.
[/INDENT]Nice model, I wouldn't mind seeing more fleshed out on the dynamics between the various systems as well as more details on each constituent part of the information cycle.

Good stuff. I'd say keep at it - it's a productive and important theory.

Thanks

BrightNoon -

So.. we can explain our existence but NOT understand it? If I can explain how a piece of paper is made, does that mean I do not understand it?
Explaining the function of something, how it is made and how it interacts with the World (Being-in-the-World in a physical sense) is understanding a thing. That's all there is.

When you talk of "understanding", I think you mean private, individual knowledge of a thing (ie. the piece of paper as a means for writing on) - and this is rarely equivalent to the complete scientific knowledge of that thing.

OK I may be missing your point here, but you are aware of your senses, no? To say that consciousness has "nothing outside of itself" seems like a total falsehood. "Being-in-the-World" as Heidegger puts it is an intrinsic part of Dasein being able ot become conscious.
You make a totally arbitrary distinction between the "idea"/"process" of consciousness (which you claim science can know) and the "experience" of consciousness (which you say science cannot). The experience is a product of the process, and so has exactly the same requirements