Belief, faith, doubt

[jayem]

Its not that I need more, it's that if there is more then I want to know what it is because I'm naturally curious.

Understanding the natural world is difficult enough. I'm sure we'll never comprehend it completely. The more we learn, the more questions we'll encounter. So I don't know how one could ever have knowledge of some other realm of existence. Anything we have would be pure speculation.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm afraid not. What we consciously perceive to be true is entirely dependent on our subconscious. We don't know this naturally, but only become aware of it through mental (spiritual) development.

Can you consciously decide to stop your heart from beating? Our subconscious is more powerful than our conscious mind. That does not mean we are powerless by any means.

I don't think my subconscious controls my heart. I think my heart beats because I've been given life.

If my subconscious controls my heart, then it was my subconscious that started my heart beating and I don't think that makes sense because if that were true then it was my subconscious that gave me life. Does that seem true to you?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't think my subconscious controls my heart. I think my heart beats because I've been given life.

If my subconscious controls my heart, then it was my subconscious that started my heart beating and I don't think that makes sense because if that were true then it was my subconscious that gave me life. Does that seem true to you?

The medulla oblongata controls the heart, as well as other involuntary functions of the body.

And what gave "you" life was a sperm and an egg.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We're influenced by what we perceive as true, with our conscious mind. Our subconscious picks up on these influences and takes over for us when our conscious is preoccupied with active thought.

It's pretty much the other way around. Our subconscious alerts our conscious when it needs some high level coordination; apart from that, except when we're in deliberative thought (Kahneman's 'System 2'), the subconscious handles everything else.

You're making it seem like our subconscious has more power than our consciousness, when in actuality, our subconscious derives it's power from our consciousness.

People who work in brain science disagree. Estimates of the extent of conscious activity as a percentage of the whole are around 5% or less. Our consciousness is dependent on subconscious processing for practically all its activities, and arrogates a lot of agency it isn't responsible for. There are even mechanisms to manipulate the timing of perceptions to maintain the impression of conscious agency.

But it's worth remembering that the subconscious is the bulk of the person you are, the conscious is more like a sense of awareness for that 'hidden' you. However, the indications are that, just as our experiential reality is an internal model corrected by perceptual input, the conscious self is also based on a simplified internal model, like a social avatar representing the person you (like to) think you are.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

I don't think my subconscious controls my heart. I think my heart beats because I've been given life.

If my subconscious controls my heart, then it was my subconscious that started my heart beating and I don't think that makes sense because if that were true then it was my subconscious that gave me life. Does that seem true to you?

Saying your heart beats because you've been given life is not really an explanation. It's like saying the car starts because it was created to start, when I'm saying it starts by putting the key in the ignition and turning. I'm not excluding a creator (God) by saying our subconscious keeps our heart beating.

Anyway, the point I was making is to think of something about yourself that operates automatically (subconsciously) and then see if you can consciously interfere with it.

 

[Chriliman]

It's pretty much the other way around. Our subconscious alerts our conscious when it needs some high level coordination; apart from that, except when we're in deliberative thought (Kahneman's 'System 2'), the subconscious handles everything else.
People who work in brain science disagree. Estimates of the extent of conscious activity as a percentage of the whole are around 5% or less. Our consciousness is dependent on subconscious processing for practically all its activities, and arrogates a lot of agency it isn't responsible for. There are even mechanisms to manipulate the timing of perceptions to maintain the impression of conscious agency.

But it's worth remembering that the subconscious is the bulk of the person you are, the conscious is more like a sense of awareness for that 'hidden' you. However, the indications are that, just as our experiential reality is an internal model corrected by perceptual input, the conscious self is also based on a simplified internal model, like a social avatar representing the person you (like to) think you are.

I know the subconscious handles a lot of behind the scenes processing, but this does not mean it's more powerful or that it pre existed consciousness.

After all one has to first have consciousness in order to understand the purpose of subconscious, which in of itself is a testamate to the power of consciousness.

 

[Chriliman]

Saying your heart beats because you've been given life is not really an explanation. It's like saying the car starts because it was created to start, when I'm saying it starts by putting the key in the ignition and turning. I'm not excluding a creator (God) by saying our subconscious keeps our heart beating.

Anyway, the point I was making is to think of something about yourself that operates automatically (subconsciously) and then see if you can consciously interfere with it.

I dont think something that operates automatically is necessarily subconscious. I'd say it has nothing to do with the persons subconscious or consciousness. Rather, it's built in to function a certain way, unconscious to the person it's functioning for.

 

[Chriliman]

The medulla oblongata controls the heart, as well as other involuntary functions of the body.

And what gave "you" life was a sperm and an egg.

Great, so you agree that our subconscious does not control our hearts.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

I dont think something that operates automatically is necessarily subconscious. I'd say it has nothing to do with the persons subconscious or consciousness. Rather, it's built in to function a certain way, unconscious to the person it's functioning for.

I don't think you know what you are talking about sir. If you are a materialist and you believe in life after death/God, then your input shouldn't be taken seriously. Sorry.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think you know what you are talking about sir. If you are a materialist and you believe in life after death/God, then your input shouldn't be taken seriously. Sorry.

I'm definitely not an expert, but still free to think objectively about these concepts in order to arrive at the most reasonable truth.

Interesting that you think the input of those who believe that the material world was created by God for eternal purposes, should not be taken seriously.

Sorry if I threaten your beliefs, but it is good to think objectively about these things.

 

[TreasureHunter12]

I'm definitely not an expert, but still free to think objectively about these concepts in order to arrive at the most reasonable truth.

Interesting that you think the input of those who believe that the material world was created by God for eternal purposes, should not be taken seriously.

Sorry if I threaten your beliefs, but it is good to think objectively about these things.

I only take issue with your apparent need to take a position on every topic of discussion on this forum. I provided an example for understanding and you have to take a position, taking the thread on a tangent, even though it's quite obvious you're unable to provide anything valuable or interesting to the new, sidetracked discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know the subconscious handles a lot of behind the scenes processing, but this does not mean it's more powerful or that it pre existed consciousness.

You'll need to explain what you mean by 'more powerful' in this context - non-conscious processes do the vast bulk of cognitive 'heavy lifting', and conscious processes are dependent on them (see Kahneman's book, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'). As for pre-existence, autonomic brain activity precedes the development of awareness of self in infancy, and prior to that the evidence suggests only some basic level of unreflective, present-oriented consciousness. Pre-term, the thalamo-cortical axis and neural circuitry to support consciousness aren't fully developed until the 3rd trimester, by which time a variety of other pathways are well established and active. So by any reasonable interpretation, consciousness arrives later - which is quite in keeping with its dependence on non-conscious processes.

After all one has to first have consciousness in order to understand the purpose of subconscious, which in of itself is a testamate to the power of consciousness.

That's true, but has no bearing on which precedes the other, and the power of consciousness is dependent on subconscious processes, and conscious processing is qualitatively different - that's the point of it. Subconscious processes (system 1) are intuitive, fast, automatic (effortless), stereotypic, and heuristic; conscious processes (System 2) are deliberative, slow, effortful, and lazy. System 2 does as little as it can get away with (because it's slow and effortful) - mainly activity monitoring and coordination, and long-term planning when necessary.

You should be able to spot some of that by introspection - the little everyday mistakes you make because your conscious attention wasn't engaged on a task; or the words or names 'on the tip of your tongue' but inaccessible - if your conscious was in control, you'd be able to consciously retrieve them, but instead they'll pop into your consciousness later, when you're thinking of something else; that's subconscious retrieval processes at work, no longer suppressed by clunky attempts at conscious access.

You need to get past the idea that consciousness is the big 'I am'; it isn't. It gets no access at all to the vast bulk of what goes on in your brain, and what it does get is a limited summary on a 'need to know' basis. In the absence of information about the reasons behind much of our actions, it uses a narrative generator to make up plausible post-hoc explanations. A conscious self is a convenient reflective summary, a way for the whole 'you' to represent itself in the world. It may seem weird and counter-intuitive, but there's now an extensive body of empirical evidence that this view is broadly correct.

 

[Chriliman]

You'll need to explain what you mean by 'more powerful' in this context - non-conscious processes do the vast bulk of cognitive 'heavy lifting', and conscious processes are dependent on them (see Kahneman's book, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'). As for pre-existence, autonomic brain activity precedes the development of awareness of self in infancy, and prior to that the evidence suggests only some basic level of unreflective, present-oriented consciousness. Pre-term, the thalamo-cortical axis and neural circuitry to support consciousness aren't fully developed until the 3rd trimester, by which time a variety of other pathways are well established and active. So by any reasonable interpretation, consciousness arrives later - which is quite in keeping with its dependence on non-conscious processes.
That's true, but has no bearing on which precedes the other, and the power of consciousness is dependent on subconscious processes, and conscious processing is qualitatively different - that's the point of it. Subconscious processes (system 1) are intuitive, fast, automatic (effortless), stereotypic, and heuristic; conscious processes (System 2) are deliberative, slow, effortful, and lazy. System 2 does as little as it can get away with (because it's slow and effortful) - mainly activity monitoring and coordination, and long-term planning when necessary.

You should be able to spot some of that by introspection - the little everyday mistakes you make because your conscious attention wasn't engaged on a task; or the words or names 'on the tip of your tongue' but inaccessible - if your conscious was in control, you'd be able to consciously retrieve them, but instead they'll pop into your consciousness later, when you're thinking of something else; that's subconscious retrieval processes at work, no longer suppressed by clunky attempts at conscious access.

You need to get past the idea that consciousness is the big 'I am'; it isn't. It gets no access at all to the vast bulk of what goes on in your brain, and what it does get is a limited summary on a 'need to know' basis. In the absence of information about the reasons behind much of our actions, it uses a narrative generator to make up plausible post-hoc explanations. A conscious self is a convenient reflective summary, a way for the whole 'you' to represent itself in the world. It may seem weird and counter-intuitive, but there's now an extensive body of empirical evidence that this view is broadly correct.

I see, thanks for the explanation

Do you think the subconscious controls every non-conscious function of the body?

 

[Chriliman]

I only take issue with your apparent need to take a position on every topic of discussion on this forum. I provided an example for understanding and you have to take a position, taking the thread on a tangent, even though it's quite obvious you're unable to provide anything valuable or interesting to the new, sidetracked discussion.

My apologies, I don't want to needlessly take things on a tangent.

My issue with your premise is that you believe the subconscious is responsible for every non-conscious function of the body, including beliefs. I think that's false because there is clear evidence that certain aspects of our bodies are made/designed to function independent of our subconscious and conscious.

These built in functions, either by nature or God, are what give rise to subconscious and consciousness in humans.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think the subconscious controls every non-conscious function of the body?

If the function is non-conscious, then it's not consciously controlled, is it? I'm sensing a confusion over what subconscious means; I use it to mean neural activity that does not reach or is inaccessible to consciousness; this would include spinal reflexes as well as brain activity.

For example, a sensory stimulus can cause brain activity, but we only become consciously aware of the stimulus if it is above a certain threshold that triggers widespread brain activity instead of limited local activity. So, in some situations, you can respond to a stimulus without being consciously aware of it (although you might become aware of the response, and you might confabulate a plausible explanation for it).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... there is clear evidence that certain aspects of our bodies are made/designed to function independent of our subconscious and conscious.

Citation needed. What aspects and what 'clear evidence'?

 

[Chriliman]

If the function is non-conscious, then it's not consciously controlled, is it?

Right, and if it's not consciously controlled that doesn't necessarily mean it's subconsciously controlled. For example: The ability to replicate cells and repair damaged cells in the body is neither consciously or subconsciously controlled. Instead, it's a function within the body that was made/designed by either nature or God.

I'm sensing a confusion over what subconscious means; I use it to mean neural activity that does not reach or is inaccessible to consciousness; this would include spinal reflexes as well as brain activity.

Agreed.

For example, a sensory stimulus can cause brain activity, but we only become consciously aware of the stimulus if it is above a certain threshold that triggers widespread brain activity instead of limited local activity. So, in some situations, you can respond to a stimulus without being consciously aware of it (although you might become aware of the response, and you might confabulate a plausible explanation for it).

At this point my main question is whether or not the subconscious controls certain body functions like the beating of the heart. This was something TreasureHunter12 alluded to, which I think is inaccurate because the heartbeat is controlled by electrical impulses, not the subconscious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right, and if it's not consciously controlled that doesn't necessarily mean it's subconsciously controlled. For example: The ability to replicate cells and repair damaged cells in the body is neither consciously or subconsciously controlled. Instead, it's a function within the body that was made/designed by either nature or God.

OK, metabolic processes at a cellular level are mainly autonomous, although there is a degree of hormonal control over tissues exercised by various glands that are controlled by the nervous system.

At this point my main question is whether or not the subconscious controls certain body functions like the beating of the heart. This was something TreasureHunter12 alluded to, which I think is inaccurate because the heartbeat is controlled by electrical impulses, not the subconscious.

The beating of the heart is basically autonomous - heart cells beat spontaneously and tend to synchronise, but consistent synchronisation, heart rate, and stroke volume are directly (via innervation) and indirectly (hormonal) controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Similar direct and indirect neural control systems modulate the activity of other organs and systems.

But discussion of general homeostasis, metabolism, and so-on isn't particularly relevant to the conscious and subconscious contributions to agency and the sense of volition. Frankly, it's a bit of a red-herring.

 

[Chriliman]

OK, metabolic processes at a cellular level are mainly autonomous, although there is a degree of hormonal control over tissues exercised by various glands that are controlled by the nervous system.
The beating of the heart is basically autonomous - heart cells beat spontaneously and tend to synchronise, but consistent synchronisation, heart rate, and stroke volume are directly (via innervation) and indirectly (hormonal) controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Similar direct and indirect neural control systems modulate the activity of other organs and systems.

But discussion of general homeostasis, metabolism, and so-on isn't particularly relevant to the conscious and subconscious contributions to agency and the sense of volition. Frankly, it's a bit of a red-herring.

Got it, thanks for the analysis. You've confirmed what I suspected in regards to the discussion between myself and TreasureHunter12.

I appreciate your objective input and I admit that my understanding of the subconscious is not complete, but at least I know my subconscious is not responsible for my hearts ability to beat. The ability of my heart to beat either came from nature(purposeless) or God(purposeful) and knowing which for certain is of the upmost importance when attempting to completely understand reality.

 

[zippy2006]

I think I'm not quite sure what you mean by believing it on basis of a witness?

When you believe on faith you believe in a secondary way. You believe not because you saw the thing yourself, but because someone who did see it testifies to what they saw, and you believe them.