Superconsciousness versus Subconsciousness.

Arminius, In addition, there may be the problem with classification. What form does it take? A clear cut severance? In effects, is there clear cut neuro positioning from one area of the brain to the other, corresponding to their effects? Or, is there an overlay
of functions from different parts of the brain? If the former pre-describes what is going on, then the categorization of conscious and subconscious states,
present a problem in terms of what really is going on
in those states, how they are going to be categorized and signified.

The more likely scenario is that there are some conscious elements in what is designated as sub-conscious, and reversely, as well.

Point at hand: the dream within a dream phenomenon: where, sub realities of conscious
entities seem to be present. The same effect may be
hypothesized in a ‘super-conscious’ vs. conscious state.

The same dynamics of probabilities versus certainties may show up in sort of emphatic shifts. In a hypothesized unified field,within subconscious/sleeping state, the neuro-consciousness
has less work to do, therefore the shift is prone to devolve into more general and primitive symbolism, such as animism, and as such, used to be interpreted in terms of higher cognitive/conscious symbolic content.

No.

Only in parts.

Yes.

If so, then the effects would seem to correspond to the classification, as over-laid. Therefore, there may be an intrinsic shift toward a unification between the various forms of consciousness: pre, sub, and super(your def.)., ?

Okay, SUPER- versus SUB-, PRE- versus POST-, it is just a philosophical attempt, a gedankenexperiment. and I belive it is worth the discussion.

Agreed. I really feel it may emerge in practicum, over and beyond an attempt, but leave it at that.

Please, look at the following picture:

Imagine, you were the one on the mountaintop: What would you think?

Examples:

A) “Nice picture”.
B) “Am I alone?”.
C) “Do I have friends?”.
D) “It is about time to go to bed!”.


Would a superconsciousness help here?

Alpha & OMEGA

Imagine, you would have to choose one of those four options: Wich one would you choose?

I would choose A) “Nice picture”.

:sunglasses:

I would choose B) “Am I Alone”?

No, because, only four choices were given. The real answer is missing. The picture is not a picture, it is a cognitive test: a super-imposition of Christ and Antichrist, of the inner subconscious of the religious pre-fix, and Nietzche’s similar overlook. It is not merely a picture as it is usually conceived, it is an internal mapping of similar ideas, spanning 800 years. It is perhaps, the metaphors for two pictures.

Why must there be?

I don’t think the instinct brain covers all of freud’s id. You have instincts in there, though you may be rather conscious of these - urges to drink when thirsty, urges to hit when attacked and so on. So first off I would say that some instincts are not unconscious. The process of socialization or becoming civilized can suppresse or deny a lot of this and so it ends up in the unconscious, be even the repressed modern will have instincts that are not unconscious to him or her. Then from the other side, I think the unconscious can have memories, for example, that are not instincts but overwhelming and so are out of consciousness. Probably a good case could be made for saying that some powerful instinct is involved and this is causal in why that memory is hidden, but it is not just instincts that are hidden. Further there would be all sorts of things that are more neutrallly charged that are in the unconscious. Assumptions about what is real. Assumptions about semantics - some of which might be known, but not all of it. Assumptions about, say women or men or sex. Not necessarily at all highly emotional stuff, just cultural ideas and assumptions that lead one in certain directions and not others.

For me the superego is a (partially) disidentified with introjection and is part of the reasoning brain. However it has hidden and accessible facets.

I also think it can literally be something foreign in the mind, but that’s a tangent at this point.

In reality or at least according to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix “post” (cf. for example “posthuman”), if there is the prefix “pre” (cf. for example “prehuman”), and there must also be the prefix “super-” (cf. for example “superordination”), if there is the prefix “sub-” (cf. for example "subordination). It is a question of word meaning or concept definition. For example: the term “a posteriori” is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite of the term “a priori”, and the term “superconscious” is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term “subconscious”.

And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically, then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.

So the “superconsciousness” as the opposite of the “subconsciousness” is what is beyond the “consciousness”, whereas the “consciousness” itself is beyond the “subconsciousness” which is beyond the “unconsciousness”. If we believe in an area between the “consciousness” and the “unconsciousness”, then we can also believe that the “consciousness” is an area between the “subconsciousness” and the “superconsciousness”. I would even say that the word “consciousness” stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of “superconsciousness” is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.

Please note that these four areas (superconsciousness, consciousness, subconsciousness, unconsciousness) are in permanent contact with each other, they work together.

Arminius,

They may work together, or may not, depending on the degree of what the Freudians call ‘association’.

They must work together, namely as much as they are part of the body. But we should not associate this too much with the psychological or, especially, the psychoanalytic meaning of “association”.

If we take the example of the prehuman, at least until very recently, if now, there was no post human. Perhaps there will be, but it isn’t here now. So perhaps there is no superconsciousness (yet). Perhaps we will turn the world into a nuclear cinder before any posthumans come to be.

Also wouldn’t this kind of deduction lead to an infinite series. If we have subcellular processes, then were have cells in a superposition to those, yes. They we have the body in a superposition to that and cells in a subposition to the body. Sure, we can go on to ecosystem, perhaps solar system - though here the terms not longer have meaning to me. But at some point, it seems to me we will reach a place where, yes, there are sub-somethings, but no super-something to all of these. Hierarchies may have limits. How do we know that the limit relating to consciousness isn’t at conscousness. I say this not out of hubris - nothing could be beyond my mind, I am a kind of theist so personally I have no problem with this - it just seems to me it is being fooled by logic into thinking reality must match deductions based on human language.

What is it referring to, can you use it in a more specific sentence? What do we do with it?

This depends on the result of the nuclear catastrophe and, of course, on the definition of “humans”. If we bring the prefix “post” and the noun “humans” together, then these compound words form the word “posthumans” with the meaning “temporally after the humans living X”, whereby “X” can be either (a) humans or (b) other living beings, because this depends on the more or less exact definition of “posthumans”. Actually “posthumans” should be humans as well, but they do not have to be humans. This may become clear by another example: A “postwar” should but does not necessarily mean a “war”. So the prefix “post” is a bit tricky (and by the way: the prefix “pre” too). Nonhuman living beings can and some of them will probably survive a huge nuclear catastrophe. So according to the definition-in-the-wider-sense (see: b) they will be the posthumans, but according to the definition-in-the-narrower-sense (see: a) they will not be the posthumans, because nonhuman living beings are not humans.

Yes, but without a “super” a “sub” makes not much sense. The dichotomy of “super” and “sub” is like the dichotomy of “under” and “over” or of “below” and “above” etc. pp…

Yes.

The superconsciousness is also comparable with a godhood that is coming from inside and outside of us. The anti-religious and anti-theistic ILP members will say: “This is the same old religion”. I do not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word “religion”. We can call it “spiritual training” too. It does not matter at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear. In addition, the superconsciousness is not solely a religious phenomenon. The religious phenomenon is merely one of many other examples that can show how the superconsciousness is working.

2 op

nature doesn’t see a consciousness and a subconsciousness, there is a physical object which makes patterns [info] based upon the mirror of that in the world = the brain/subconscious aspects of, and it has also consciousness. Nature doesn’t see this thing we call subconsciousness.

There is no superconscious at least one that’s measurably [or et al] affecting – nothing to be in conflict with.

Consciousness is a unique thing, like music or colour or any facet of our reality. There are no variations or other kinds of consciousness sub or super, extant in this world imho.

I would certianly think that before we get to the level of ‘the universe’ there will always be some kind of super for each sub. But it seems not necessarily of the same kind, that a category shift, a move away from the object or organism in question takes place or can. IOW I am not saying that there is nothing beyond my consciousness (and in fact in my belief system there is something that could perhaps be called a superconsciousness), but for, for example, a physicalist, we have a subconsciousness, a consciousness, but there is nothing conscious in super relation, as part of that human, beyond. There is stuff beyond the consciousness of the individual, but it would not be his or hers. What I am saying here is that a physicalist could use the term subconscious, when referring to Joe, without it entailing a superconsciousness. The subconsciousness is below a threshhold and consciousness is above it. No need to bring in a superconsciousness which is above or surrounds that.

Which brings up another issue. To me consciuosness is surrounded by what I would call the unconscious, not the reverse.

You are agreeing now?

I suppose that model is similar or really at such a level of abstraction that it can fit with my beliefs.