Talkback: Subconscious and Freewill

Add your comment

From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:23:17
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	1. I read the chat transcript with great interst as I 've just spent the last 3 days reading about intuition. I direct you tho this article http://www.intuition.org/sorokin.htm as an example. I have Tourettes Syndrome (TS). A neurological disorder. A concise definition is given here http://www.tourette-syndrome.com/tourette-syndrome-faq.htm. Since as far back as I remember, I've had some sort of TS, OCD and ADHD symptom. I finally found out what I had when I was 28. I'm now 31. Briefly, my 'habits' often infuriated my parents leaving me in the position of always having to tic in secret to avoid repremand. This being during the time before TS was 'rediscovered' by the medical professions. I say 'rediscovered' but it's still grossly under disgnosed and public awareness is worse. Due this situation, all my life I've been acutely aware of othere peoples feelings and thier manifestations as pecieved by my own eyes and feelings for the purpose of being able to tic when no-one was looking and control my behaviour. In this, I mean I was always watching expressions of others to see how I was recieved and as an indication of whether my behaviour was acceptable or not. Hence I could try to adjust my behaviour in the hope of recieving expressions from others that were favourable to good social interaction. in addition to this, I have always been a people watcher and intently studied peoples expressions from afar. By 'expressions', I mean all mannerisms, speach inflections, body laguage, facial expressions and more importantly everything about that person, 'together' at the same time and view it as a 'one' object where no one part means anything when not in context with everything else....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:24:05
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	2. .....How does this relate to your conversation? well, these days I don't seem to observe so intently but my accuracy in 'intuitively' 'knowing' how a person feels and sometimes, what they're thinking has lead to many a situation where people have asked me with total astonishment, 'How did you know that!?' It is sometimes said that to understand TS would be to have a much greater insight into the workings of the subconcious. All my waking hours I am bombarded with 'intuitive' feelings about what I should do next. I'm lucky in that my partner is a Psychologist and I can have great conversations with her about the inner workings of the mind of which I am so interested. In our talks, we have come to the conclusion that TS in some way makes me more sensitive to this 'Intuition' than most..shall we say, normals. I certainly do feel like I have a closer relationship with it, taking into acount the 'How did you know that!?' reactions I get and many other things too numerous to mention. This 'knowing' about people I get, comes instantaneously, from seemingly nowhere. It is a 'feeling' of sorts. It is almost like I am inside the other person actually feeling how they feel. It is so much more that the combination of thier visable and sensory expression. Sometimes, I feel like I have somekind of super human ability where this is concerned. Of course I don't. Everyone has this ability inside them though some have it 'tuned' more than others. Tics of all kinds can be seperated into two groups. 1. Those that can be intercepted by the concious mind and 2. Those that cannot. Additionally, Those in group 2 may or may not be noticed by the concious mind......
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:24:52
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	3. ....The tics in the first group have a chance of being supressed or completely banished. Those in group two do not, and just explode into the world about. Where do these feeling and urges come from? I never conciously decide, 'ok I'm gonna do that tic next', tics simply appear from the invisible void that is my subconcious. They appear as a strange feeling that something HAS TO happen in a certain way. Tic intuitions and the intuitive thoughts of 'knowing' I get about people are not dissimilar. However, with tics there is also sometimes another, a secondary 'intuitive' feeling that says the 'tic intuition' is invalid. Supression comes from the internal, concious battle that is played out in my concious mind with these two intiuitive feelings or urges, each one fighting for supremacy. Similarly; As I write these paragraphs, I intuitively know what I want to say - It is a feeling of knowing. I also intuitlevey know that I want to type what i want to say so it makes sence to the reader. But how? Then, after my concious mind has been almost abstractly throwing the words around my head, a third intuition hit me and 'intuitively' the words come to me as a 'feeling' in thier entirety I can see all at once and a meaning, a feeling of the meaning, chanels the words through my fingers into the real world in the form of a coherant narrative.....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:26:04
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	4. ....In light of my own experience, readings and a constant internal study of myself, I'd have to agree with eadon-com in so far as the importance of the subconcious and the role it playes in our lives. In a sence, underpinning the concious. However I think it's also fair to say that the unconcious, concious and sensory systems all play a significant part as to make each element reletively useless with out the other two. ---------------- Erich von Däniken asserted something to the effect that, one could no more prove or disprove his theories than one could prove or disprove the doctrines preached by the ecclesiastic. No matter how much of a nutter you think Erich von Däniken is, the notion alone incites some very important questions. After reading much on the similarities with intuition and faith, Im of the opinion that experiences of divinity in nature and stories of such are more closely related to intuition than anything related to a 'God'. For example; It is said that Jesus was 'Resurrected' People who believe and/or preach this notion accept it as fact on blind faith. Although 'seemingly' there 'is' proof of such a thing as described by indiviuals in the days following the crucifixion. If true, these reports prove nothing except that Jesus was 'seen' regardless of what he was 'percieved' as being seen as. The intuition that gave life to the resurrection theory......
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:27:00
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	5. .....I read a book called 'The Tomb of God' (I forget the author) that posits that Jesus was resuscitated rather than resurrected. I believe that resurrection is more metaphoric than truth. If all your life you know of crucifixion as causing death, then you see someone crucified, whom later you observe to be seemingly alive again, what would you think? My 'intuition' tells me that resuscitation is more plausable than resurrection. I also believe that it is because of certain assumptions people made at the time that we find ourselves in the position we are in today with regards to this 'alleged' act of divine intervention called the resurrection of Christ. Some people would vehemently argue this, but based on what? Blind faith? The facts? (What facts?) What it says in the Bible? (Which is based on what?) The only FACT of the matter is that you can no more prove of disprove my theory than you can prove or disprove the 'theory' of the crusifixion. Why the ecclesiastic are bent on this ridgidity of blind faith, I cannot fathom for removes the 'trust' of that faith/intuition from the self to an external object thus sacrificing an inherant knowing ablility available to all of us in favor of something that ultimately is not controllable or part of us. To me this seems totally absurd. ------------------ It has been pointed out that 'intuition' can be wrong. And before I digress into this very enjoyable (for me) arguement that is too detailed to adequately convey here, let us stop for a minuite and think back to when I started to talk about Erich von Däniken. As you read the text you began to form an 'idea' of where the text was going.....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:28:05
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	6. .......Some people would have grabbed at the Erich von Däniken reference and immediately assumed that I was going to push his theories. Others would have seen it in context with the references to the church and possibly posited something like my final point before they got to that bit in the text. Where do these premonitory toughts, feelings, or 'intuitions' come from? At the time your concious attention is directed at the text. The proper meaning of which is taken from the whole text, not just any one word. While your concious is busy, simultaneously, you subconcious is busy too constantly throwing meaning and intuitions up into the concious mind as you continue to read. Therefore it is in the subconcious that most of our important cognition occours. Sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong as demonstrated everytime you listen to a person talk or read anything or do anything for that matter; Your intuition can be constantly amending itself. Can intuition be trained. Some info on that here http://www.intuitionmagazine.com/page5.html ...........
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 20:28:42
Subject:	Intuition
Comment:	7/7. ........... Finally I accept that alot of what I've said here is only my opinion. I also accept that my opinion may or may not be proved or disproved. I am totally open to discussion because somehow, I intuitively 'know' that to hold ridged beliefs about what is true and what is not true is to cut ones nose off to spite their face and in effect deprive myself of one of the most beneficial sences a person has. The sence that is the developing intuition. I think the reason I like to debate religion is, I'm extremely intrigiued by 'some' religious peoples reactions to stimulus that puts the rididity of the blind faith that is so required by religion against the internal upwelling of intuition that tells them otherwise. Why is blind faith so much more powerfull? Another day perhaps. Ticcer
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 23:16:54
Subject:	Intuition & Religion
Comment:	A. I'd also like to throw this into the fire...'Whatever you believe, you will ALWAYS seek evidence to support' Consider Sience vs Religion. A characteristic of a scientific mind is one that allows the testing of a theory to gain enlightenment. The process of testing validity requires that every side of an argument be examined. If religion requires blind faith to support an 'alleged' fact then it is in the dubious position of never being able to prove or disprove that 'alleged' fact because the 'alleged' fact is percieved to be abolute. Now let us look at history. How many scientists have waged war on the basis of thier study compared to members of any given religion bases on thier religious beliefs? How many scientists burned thier classmates books or their classmates because they didn't believe in thier own line of study? How many scientists have forced people to assimilate into thier culture? I believe religion has had it's place in history as being usefull or even helpfull to the human race. But still today we see acts of violence because someone says their religious doctrine permits them to act that way. Most notable in recient times as what happened on Sept 11th, 2001. Regardless of whether that particular doctrine is only a splinter of some greater doctrine that has been taken out of context. Regardless of any other mittigating circumstances, the fact remains that religion in it's many forms, while still doing some good in the world, is and has been historically, the foundation for much pain and suffering through out the world.....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 23:17:42
Subject:	Intuition & Religion
Comment:	B. ......It is the gross the contradiction of what religion stands for against what it actually does that makes me dismiss its potential as mere fantasy as it tries to hold onto its position in our world by strings of political correctness, attached to the very depths that it penetrated into world wide culture over the eons. This does not mean I'm catagorically saying that ALL religions have aggressive tendancy. Most notably, some eastern philosophies can be / have been, very peaceful. The very 'blind faith' that religion requires to sustain its essence is the same blind faith that has or will be its undoing. I listen to and read so many different accounts of peoples religious beliefs many many variations. I've come to believe that due to some kind of cultural conditioning many people, while growing up, aquire some 'knowing' that the 'church' is to be given a certain level of respect. Simplified; this is due to many factors on both sides including; The authority/government/churchs' attitude towards the churchs' percieved place in the world coupled with the way that attitude is percieved by others given the environments they live their lives in and the direction those invironments sway in the great sliding scale that is 'for and against'.....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 23:18:28
Subject:	Intuition & Religion
Comment:	C. ......Sometimes to find the solution to a problem, it is good to visualise it from afar. That way you can see it in its entirety. With blind faith it's not possible to do that because it is absolute; nothing can be higher. Blind faith is nothing more than a belief. As long as you believe in it you will not be able to escape it. The stonger your belief, the harder it will be to question that belief. A paradox seems apparent with the inference that one can change their beliefs; for if one beleves something to be true then that is absolute. However we know this through experience to be fallaceous Blind faith is structured so that every question ends back at itself, blind faith. Every unexplainable thing is Gods' doing, as it were. As long as you have blind faith nothing matters because everything is beyond your control. Consider this. A man is murdered by a gunman. The wife asks her religious leader, 'Whay did this happen?' Then gets the reply that 'God' works in mysterious ways, implying that everything that happens, happens for a reason that is beyond our control. When we catch the loan gunman it's a different story. He acted alone. It was premeditated murder. The gunman is treated accordingly. .....
From:	Ticcer	2002-01-21 23:19:10
Subject:	Intuition & Religion
Comment:	D. ......Surely, if it is all Gods' doing then the gunman would not be acting alone and it can't be called 'premeditated murder. Why does this contradiction exist? Again, Blind faith comes to the rescue and puts itself at the top of everything as the answer to everything. One just gets caught up in a perpetual circle. So back to my first statement 'Whatever you believe, you will ALWAYS seek evidence to support' .... unless you ask yourself questions. Questions that test the integrity of the belief to establish the validity of it. Because blind faith itself prevents any of the questions from being answered with anything other than itself, it is easy to see why so many people caught up in the, dare I say it, deception that is religion, so vehemently defend thier doctrine. Blind faith never allows them to escape its own confines to look apon it from above thus never allowing people within its' confines to see it in it's true and entire form. I do believe in a higher power. I believe that higher power is in me as it is in every person. It is something that is all of me together and not just any one aspect of me. All of me in my entirety. I do not afford a higher power to an external omipotent being who is impossible to comprehend. Therefore I retain the objectivity that blind faith robs from people that subscribe to it yet that is so vital in the pursuit of the truth. Ticcer
From:	Ticcer	2002-05-02 20:17:48
Subject:	No challenge!!??!!
Comment:	I'm surprised there are no challenges to any of the above arguments. Damn...I always enjoy a good debate. Oh Well.
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 03:17:52
Subject:	A response to Ticcer...
Comment:	I found your comments quite intruiging. I would in no way be trying to insult your intelligence when I say I dont agree completely with your views. The problem I am having right now is that I dont exactly know what it is you are trying to prove or disprove, so I cant very well form an arguement against or for it. It seems that you are attempting to disprove Christianity with your philosophy, and if that is the case then I can definately give you something to read...
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 03:31:56
Subject:	Putting Christians into categories
Comment:	...In your arguement you quoted that a priest would say 'It was all God's doing.' I would really like to know what priest would ever contribute murder to the will of God. This of course presents a world of thought...If God knows all and can do all then it IS his doing because he could have stopped it.... BUT, there is a little thing called FREE WILL that puts a stop to your arguement. When a person murders, he is void of the holy spirit, and therefor it is that persons doing and not God's. In fact every premeditated action a person can make is completely voluntary contrived by thier own willpower to do so. Basically what I am trying to get at is that it seems that you have come to your conclusions through your own personal thoughts, but I do believe that if you want to know what a Christian believes then why dont you ask a christian. It sounds like the priest that you characterize in your arguement is Catholic, solely because only catholics call themselves priests. I personally do not like the catholic religion. That doesnt mean I dont like catholic people, just that there system of beliefs are completely (how can I put this delicately?) ....wrong. This is my own opinion of course, but I have done much research on the topic and the information that I have found is probably very different than the information that you may have found. My sources are very unique, and most of the world has not even heard of them. I am not going to tell you what my sources are or even what I believe because if I do I believe that you will automatically put me into a category based on your 'intuition' and that you will judge me based on your knowledge of that category.This may not be true, but it seems that way to me. I apologize if I am wrong...
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 03:48:03
Subject:	resuscitation?
Comment:	What exactly are you trying to prove about the ressurection of Jesus. It seems that you have given alternate circumstances for the story in the Bible. Christians would say 2+2 is four. Then you come along and say 'What if it was 1+3? Prove me wrong!' What kind of logic is that? It may very well have been 3x (16738a + 45b - 1c), but does that prove or disprove the biblical account? No it doesnt. I can sit here all day and come up with alternate causes for every single effect that I can percieve, but does that mean that any of those plausible solutions are the absolute reality? No it doesnt. No matter how much you consider it, and no matter how much you think about it, there is no way to contrive absolute truth single-handedly. For that very reason people would say it doesnt exist. But to those people I would ask 'Does the sky appear blue when you look at it in the afternoon?' Well, DOES IT? The answer is yes, no matter how you want to go into analizing the spectrum of light as it passes through transluscent particles. The answer is yes, the sky appears blue to me in the afternoon. So is there an absolute answer, yes. Therefor, absolute truth exists. Of course even if one believes in absolute truth, that does not mean that you can just go around calling everything absolutely true, so we will have to discuss the validity of the biblical account...
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 03:59:04
Subject:	The Bible: True?
Comment:	I am not even going to begin to argue against your claim about the ressurection. You are right, there is no way to really know for sure anything at all. However, there is one thing in the Bible that does prove the existence of some higher power, and that is PROPHECY. If there is no higher power, then how the heck can somebody accurately predict the future? Not only predict the future, but predict it with pin-point accuracy? The answer is, IT AINT POSSIBLE!! Simple as that. If there were not some metaphysical force existing outside of time with a channel of communication with, or at least means of controlling, a human being, then prophecy could not possibly happen. But it did. And it was accurate. Now this is based on the opinion that the historicist view of prophecy is at least somewhat correct. I admit it has problems, but nothing that cant be fixed. I would not even begin to believe the nonsense that the preterists and the futurists are presenting. Basically I believe Historicism for lack of a convinceable alternative. Firstly, Historicism is very convincing, and is very plausible. Secondly, I have read many anti-historicist articles that completely misconstrude and take out of context the historicist views so please go to the source if you are going to even begin to challenge thier position....
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 04:18:02
Subject:	The Bible: True? (continued)
Comment:	Now I dont imagine that that little blurb on prophecy has even begun to sway your opinion, because it was terribly incomplete, and lacks any supporting facts whatsoever. You really must forgive me of that, but to put all the facts into any one of my comments would take...soooooo much time, and you would be soooooo tired after reading it all even if you decided to painstakingly do so. Im just going to continue on as if I have made a good arguement, for the sake of completing my thought. Since I have come to the conclusion that there must be some sort of Metaphysical being outside of time with some means of communicating with or at least controlling some physical individual, I can take it a step further and assume a bunch more in saying the that being would probably be more powerful than us. It would also know everything because it would be able to pass through our time and space effortlessly. To be able to even process all of that data, it's central structure of intelligence would be so far capable than our brain. In fact it wouldnt even be able to have a brain because a brain is matter, it would have to be....inconcieveable. Such a being would be completely inconcieveable, but evidence suggest that such a being exists. This is the center of Christianity which you so lovingly mock. It is the concept which drives all Christians to believe what they believe...
From:	The Indoctrinating Apologeticist	2003-03-09 04:20:57
Subject:	Plausible options? Anybody?
Comment:	...Is it that bad to believe in such a being, when it seems completely logical that one exists? If you dont believe that there was a creator of this world then what the heck do you believe? There arent any convincing options that I have heard. Macro-Evolution has been completely disproved by Creation Scientists. What else is there...oh yeah we could have been spawned by some alien race somewhere. Man Im not even gonna go there. Thats completely laughable. Oh...sure...its plausible, its even possible that some alien species cloned us and is viewing our world as some lab experiment, but then again, how the heck do you explain miracles and prophecy and spiritual healing and everything else that is evidence of a metaphysical existence? What exactly am I missing here? Is there some other way? If there is please tell me I want to know, cause it would sure be interesting to hear another fairy tale contrived while'st sitting on the can one day.
From:	Andy Taylor	2003-10-06 10:25:26
Subject:	sobconscious
Comment:	Yeah the subconscious is present and active, but your conscious mind is moving too fast for you to notice, it drowns it out. thats why when you sleep (your body is slowed down at an almost braindead state) and when you smoke weed or other drugs (THC speeds up other parts of the brain to drown out consciousness), you can see into your subconscious, the very roots of your thoughts.
From:	Samson	2004-07-11 19:58:11
Subject:	How sad
Comment:	Ok I would have to agree Eadon has no idea what he's explaining here... and the others are correct when they say there are no 'conscious' or 'subconscious' parts of the brain. Why don't we have this entire discussion over again using REAL names for parts of the brain, such as Temporal Lobe and Frontal Lobe, things that are scientifically proven. All of your arguments are very simple. I would have to say that there is no such thing as conscious no subconscious. Both of they are ways of perceiving actions that the brains takes in reacting to stimulus.... The brain (there is no need to say subconscious) receives a stimulus through one of the senses.. lets say sight. A certain physical material part of the brain is designated to handle this signal. A form of millions and millions of eletrical pulses (like those in a computer) take place. If you look at a picture on the wall you have seen before... all the signals of light are interpreted... and if you have seen this picture before you will recognize it, because the previous viewings have actually manipulated the neurons in the brain... which is a memory. If you don't understand read a book on how memory works. It's not a spiritual thing. It's not a concept. It's phyisical, matter.. it has mass and can be described.
From:	Samson	2004-07-11 19:58:43
Subject:	howsad part 2
Comment:	Once you 'recognize' the picture on the wall (note I dont need to say im 'conscious' of it.. thats meaningless) Then a thought (speach to oneself) might go into the lingual part of the brain. And I might say to myself (Yes I am looking at that picture on my wall and I am conscious of it). That is because the eletrical pulses have reached the part of the brain which 'thinks' to itself which IS the FEELING of consciousness. There is no lobe in the brain called consciousness. It is a perception of understanding a stimulus in certain areas of the brain. Those areas will change depending on if you are analyzing an emtion (chemicals in the brain) such as love, or feeling pain from a needle pricking your skin, or a bright light, or anything. Subconsciousness is mearily the action of your brain handling and analyzing a stimulus through the way of eletrical pulses (Much like a computer can do amazing things from 1s and 0s) without your thinking about it. And consciousness is the ability to think and analyze to oneself about something (which happens in a certain part of the brain but IS NOT called the conscious)
From:	John	2004-07-11 20:03:57
Subject:	moron
Comment:	Eadon just in cause you didn't know... if your name refers to the garden of Eden .. it is spelled EDEN not Eadon... read the bible
From:	jo	2006-05-24 22:17:37
Subject:	Freewill
Comment:	Neither 'god' or 'freewill'(as described in the bible) exist as far as logic tells me. Would anyone in their right mind choose to be evil? Does anyone choose to be the person that they are? There are many factors which determine a persons response to situations.1- genetics/ biological factors. 2- social conditioning. 3-All experiences that have lead up to the present moment. 4- the emotional state of the person leading up to, and at the present moment. 5- enviromental factors, ie - raw data received by the sences. The fact that we are not in control of our lives may seem daunting or even unromantic, but could you really see yourself behaving in any way other than the way it comes natuarally?
From:	barbarella	2006-12-14 09:41:00
Subject:	subconscious
Comment:	I am with Eadon with this - mostly. Although your insistence that science says so so it must be true is a scarily zealous Eadon! I think that, usually, the subconscious makes the decisions but there are exceptions. The reason it does the general decision-making is because, as you said, it is the storehouse of memory and experience and receives more information from the senses than gets filtered through to the conscious so it makes sense for it to refer back to similar situations to decide on a best response. However, this means that there has to be something in the back catalogue to refer to. The circumstances in which the subconscious does not do the deciding are those which are entirely novel or at least novel enough that there is not enough information to go on without reasoned conscious consideration. Although these occasions may be rare in adult life, the chances are that there is a fair amount of conscious decision-making that goes on in small children and it would be interesting to see how their brain scans compare with those of the adults in the study you are citing Eadon. I didn't notice if you cited the source of that study and can't check whilst typing this but I wouldn't mind seeing it just because of the point made earlier about there not being a location for the subconscious. There is no location for the conscious either they are just concepts to describe a subjective experience so would be interested to see how they made the distinction with a brain scan.