Discussions continued.

This is a response to an ongoing discussion. I have decided to post my response to @logiczombie's response as its own post, given its length. Here is the video we are referencing:

Image by Mondschwinge from Pixabay

--

Yes, it seems like I am committing a category error, or like I am arguing semantics.

However, my focal point is the subconscious.

I realize I am being very dismissive in my approach/conclusion on whether or not the various explanations include an explanation (or even an acknowledgment) of the subconscious.

I realize it is not entirely correct to do that. The rest of the explanation(s) may be perfectly fine, and suited(and not necessarily wrong), they may just be incomplete, or perhaps, inadequately explained.

For my intent and purpose, I am interested in what is said about the subconscious. That is what I am trying to reconcile.

I am looking for an explanation of what the subconscious is, of how it works, of our conscious relationship with it, and more.

I think what really riles me up, is that our brain expels more resources to the subconscious than our conscious mind. So it seems to me like we(consciously) are missing out on so much!

I am curious to know what that is and if there is a possibility to access the subconscious somehow.

I am OK with a hypothetical framework to explain a concept. As long as I can follow its logic. Thus far I haven't been able to find a hypothetical framework to explain/provide solutions for the questions I have.

I think that is really what I am talking about here.

The most impacting statement from Gödel's incompleteness theorems is: "The system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."

That creates a complex problem.

You can't define something with itself.

Yes, there is nothing wrong at all with simplifying a concept, in order to make it easier to work with/think about.

We have to start somewhere after all.

I feel as though theories such as Freud's give some/many people a ready-made excuse and way out of accountability(or rather they use such theories in such a way).

I believe that we can be aware of a lot more than we are aware of, just by expelling some effort, awareness, and presence in the moment (mindfulness).

For example, just because something is ingrained, conditioned, or primal, doesn't necessarily mean that I can't potentially change it.

We can bring things into conscious awareness, we just need to make that effort, create that focus/awareness.

The problem appears many times to be a lack of awareness of what to look for/at(how).

I imagine, inside me, is a small child. This is the (k)id, it says, "I want what I want and I want it NOW! I imagine, inside me, is an adult (parent). This is the Ego, it says, "Get out of bed and go to work or you'll be sorry!" I imagine, above me, is a wise elder (grandparent). This is the Super-Ego, it says, "Don't worry too much about the negative things people say, it's really just a reflection of their inner pain."-logiczombie

And, I have heard many people explain it in this way.

A constant dialogue with themselves. A sort of argument in their own heads.

Maybe it is because I am not neurotypical, that I can't understand?

I can't imagine going through this every time I faced a decision/thought about something!

My mind is either quiet in this respect. Or perhaps, preoccupied with other more (what I consider) pressing thoughts?

(It might also explain why I neglect or experience dysfunction in some/many areas of my life. I just don't think about those things, they don't enter my scope of thought.)

I have also heard that many people perceive emotionally. That they place themselves(emotionally) in the story they are told, and then react/process that information emotionally. (Explained as empathy, although I would argue it is somewhat reckless empathy because it is more automatic and less thought-out. I am capable of empathy, but I use logic/rationale first. I don't want to be reckless with myself or another person.

Granted this approach makes me seem very insensitive at times, which is not intentional --or again, within my awareness at those times, because at those times I am preoccupied with other thoughts.)

It's created many problems for me in my interactions with others.

Many/most times that people express a problem, they are seeking empathy(validation of feelings), and I am completely unaware that this is what they want. Instead, I see the problem and provide solutions. This, although well-intentioned is generally not well received.

In many cases, giving solutions is perceived as being offensive.

Like Minsky said in the video (to paraphrase) emotional thinking/feelings can be sloppy/limiting/blinding/etc. Realizing that, I exercise choice whether or not to emotionally engage. I can see an emotion but I can also choose whether or not to engage with it.

I know, I just got off on a bit of a tangent here, but I considered perhaps I should share a bit more about myself if that was not already evident. (I don't know, was it?)

I enjoyed Minsky's thoughts/way of thinking. I think he has the right idea to combine the different disciplines to gather a more comprehensive and useful understanding.

And, I agree with him, there is been little progress in this field, especially when compared to other fields. This became even more evident when I searched for Theories of the Mind.

I was shocked by the lack of theories(I expected a much larger volume) and by the lack of new theories.

The way to understand the brain is to understand how thinking works.-Minsky

I am really interested in how our conscious and subconscious minds interact, what the relationship is.

Yeah, he really hits it the problem on the head when he says we don't know what to look for.(Minsky) The problem really is that basic. It's not just a problem that is difficult to solve, it's that we don't even know how to go about solving it.

What is this sort of master management program that manages all of these other resources?-Kurzweil

That's a very interesting question.

I don't think there is any self.-Minsky(and what follows)

Another very interesting thought to toy with.

There is nothing in the box, but you feel much better.-Minsky

That made me laugh.

I wish you had made your comment(s) a new post, that way I could have shared it with others.

Who/what is in charge? Is it the conscious? Is it the subconscious? Speaking of function, what if the conscious is merely a function of the subconscious?

I agree with Minsky:

Emotional states usually have less structure than other ways to think. -Minsky

Although, I disagree with his analogy. But again, this could be because I am not neurotypical. I can be in love and see defects/deficiencies/issues. I can be in love and not delude myself, my reality, etc.

To me, emotions are less than thinking. -Minsky

In terms of intellect, many people would probably agree with that(me too for the most part).

In terms of value, many people would probably disagree.

We live our life through function(non-function), but we also experience our lives.

What we choose to make our primary focus, perspectives, way of thinking will definitely influence our experience. (i.e. finding purpose/meaning)

I agree with Minsky, our brains, when compared to computing power, are likely relatively small, given our significant limitations (intellectually).

I liked Minsky's sports analogy. It also made me laugh. It's something I absolutely cannot understand. What on earth is so entertaining about watching other people play sports?! I've never understood it.

I would probably be one of those uncomfortable people he speaks of.

I agree, placing too much responsibility and too many restrictions on scientist could potentially impede those scientists from making new discoveries. I agree it could be a separate body that makes those ethical/moral/protective decisions. I believe these types of decisions are our responsibility as a collective.

It will be very interesting to see what comes next and how things change. I believe that no matter what things will change. They have to any which way we look at them.

While everything you've known has become impossible to grasp. -Earth Rick

I think that our limited thinking and our limited intellect would be overwhelming for us to cope with, in that moment.

I believe we are only seeing and understanding such a tiny portion of what is happening.

As always, interesting conversation. Thank you.

-Akiroq

P.S. Here is another interesting conversation people may be interested in.
The "Pascal's Mugging" video was very interesting to watch and think about.