conscioness, subconcious and the unconcious

[victorel21]

in the following op i will argue for three things.

1. the sub conscious and unconscious must be separated by definition (sig mund freud basically labels them the same).

2. there is no way you can prove that the conscious is different from the subconscious. (apart from the concetration needed to think).

3. consciousness is the same as the subconscious,

before you dismiss this as trolling it is best to see what i mean by subconscious. to do this i will first describe what is meant by unconscious.

the unconscious as i label it is: any reaction that is innate to the human being. example breathing, sucking and any reaction that is determined (relative) to dna structure.

It is my appreciation that there are some actions or abilities that a human possess that where learned yet the human has no cognition of them whilst he is peforming them. example riding a bycicle, playing an instrument, speaking, even writting.

One cannot say this are unconscious actions since they are learned and so not relative to their dna structure ( although dna struture allows them to learn it) and one cannot label this the consciousness since the person might not have to be aware of what his doing ( the action does not need any kind of concentration) it is in other words it is natural.

Now under this two definitions, of unconscious and subconscious, one can see that they cannot be said to be the same.

However, a problem arises, if you define subconscious as that which being learned is done without the need of concentration (thus allowing you to focus on other things) there is no real distinction between them apart from the concentration that is needed to undergo the thinking process (associative process).

It could be said that subconscious and consciousness are different due to the concentration needed but would not this make them basically the same? Only that one is simply a magnification. Much like tow soccer balls colliding and two tennis balls colliding.

With this i reach the conclusion ( not new ) that we have levels of consciousness even in what we perceive as consciousness and that the subconscious is thus no different from the conscious by essence but are distinct by scale.

Therefore anyone that beleives the subconcious to be something mechanical cannot regard the conscious to be anything different.

p.s. if you know of a word that means the same as what i level subconcious please let me know.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@victorel21

in the following op i will argue for three things.

1. the sub conscious and unconscious must be separated by definition (sig mund freud basically labels them the same).

2. there is no way you can prove that the conscious is different from the subconscious. (apart from the concetration needed to think).

3. consciousness is the same as the subconscious,

before you dismiss this as trolling it is best to see what i mean by subconscious. to do this i will first describe what is meant by unconscious.

the unconscious as i label it is: any reaction that is innate to the human being. example breathing, sucking and any reaction that is determined (relative) to dna structure.

It is my appreciation that there are some actions or abilities that a human possess that where learned yet the human has no cognition of them whilst he is peforming them. example riding a bycicle, playing an instrument, speaking, even writting.

One cannot say this are unconscious actions since they are learned and so not relative to their dna structure ( although dna struture allows them to learn it) and one cannot label this the consciousness since the person might not have to be aware of what his doing ( the action does not need any kind of concentration) it is in other words it is natural.

Now under this two definitions, of unconscious and subconscious, one can see that they cannot be said to be the same.

However, a problem arises, if you define subconscious as that which being learned is done without the need of concentration (thus allowing you to focus on other things) there is no real distinction between them apart from the concentration that is needed to undergo the thinking process (associative process).

It could be said that subconscious and consciousness are different due to the concentration needed but would not this make them basically the same? Only that one is simply a magnification. Much like tow soccer balls colliding and two tennis balls colliding.

With this i reach the conclusion ( not new ) that we have levels of consciousness even in what we perceive as consciousness and that the subconscious is thus no different from the conscious by essence but are distinct by scale.

Therefore anyone that beleives the subconcious to be something mechanical cannot regard the conscious to be anything different.

p.s. if you know of a word that means the same as what i level subconcious please let me know.

First thing is that you seem to be confusing the argument by bringing in DNA. This does not really add to the statement.
The other problem is that you do not seem to be clearly saying what is the difference between unC and subC.
Are you saying that the autonomic system is unC, whilst skill like bike riding is SubC?

I have to tell you that I do not think you can really include ‘breathing’ as that is a purely autonomic response and can carry on without any apparent consciousness. Whilst you are sometimes aware of it there is nothing about being aware of it that necessitates it. The heartbeat is the same.
Beyond this it is probably the case that Freud’s problem with ‘subconscious’ is that it is poorly defined and tended to use unC, on sematic grounds.

[victorel21]

@Hobbes Choice

First thing is that you seem to be confusing the argument by bringing in DNA. This does not really add to the statement.

Why is this so?

@Hobbes Choice

The other problem is that you do not seem to be clearly saying what is the difference between unC and subC.
Are you saying that the autonomic system is unC, whilst skill like bike riding is SubC?

Pretty much, yes. The subconscious is ignited by the consciousness yet it requires little concentration to be peformed.

@Hobbes Choice

I have to tell you that I do not think you can really include ‘breathing’ as that is a purely autonomic response and can carry on without any apparent consciousness. Whilst you are sometimes aware of it there is nothing about being aware of it that necessitates it. The heartbeat is the same.

I think you have misinterpreted what i have written, breathing is an unconscious action a such it is part of the autonomic system. So i do agree with you on that.

@Hobbes Choice

Beyond this it is probably the case that Freud’s problem with ‘subconscious’ is that it is poorly defined and tended to use unC, on sematic grounds.

Probably right.

[Hobbes_Choice]

Sorry for the late reply.

WHy is introducing not adding to the argument??
You said this:

One cannot say this are unconscious actions since they are learned and so not relative to their dna structure ( although dna struture allows them to learn it) and one cannot label this the consciousness since the person might not have to be aware of what his doing ( the action does not need any kind of concentration) it is in other words it is natural.

Sentence 1 is a little ungrammatical, but if I read it properly…
Okay a thought does not have a DNA structure.
Then you say (althought dna structure allows them to learn it). WHo or what is them?
If you mean that DNA is the ultimate cause of thought because the brain is formed from DNA code, fine - but this does not help the argument: the role of DNA structure to consciousness, subconsciousness or unconsciousness is unknown and these things are social and phenomenological categories not to be understood by looking at the base pair of DNA, That would be like trying to understand the Mona Lisa from the paint molecules.
“in other words it is natural” - you mean what?

On the issue on the autonomic system. The analogy is not clear. We are aware of both breathing and heart beat. We can consciously stop breathing, and even change the rate of our heart by what we think and do…
Then the question is then are SubC or UnC also controllable in the same way?

[victorel21]

@Hobbes Choice

Sorry for the late reply.

WHy is introducing not adding to the argument??
You said this:

One cannot say this are unconscious actions since they are learned and so not relative to their dna structure ( although dna struture allows them to learn it) and one cannot label this the consciousness since the person might not have to be aware of what his doing ( the action does not need any kind of concentration) it is in other words it is natural.

Sentence 1 is a little ungrammatical, but if I read it properly…
Okay a thought does not have a DNA structure.
Then you say (althought dna structure allows them to learn it). WHo or what is them?
If you mean that DNA is the ultimate cause of thought because the brain is formed from DNA code, fine - but this does not help the argument: the role of DNA structure to consciousness, subconsciousness or unconsciousness is unknown and these things are social and phenomenological categories not to be understood by looking at the base pair of DNA, That would be like trying to understand the Mona Lisa from the paint molecules.
“in other words it is natural” - you mean what?

On the issue on the autonomic system. The analogy is not clear. We are aware of both breathing and heart beat. We can consciously stop breathing, and even change the rate of our heart by what we think and do…
Then the question is then are SubC or UnC also controllable in the same way?

okay this is purely a strutural problem, my apologize,

the brackets needed to be stated as (although dna stuructre allows the actions to be learned) meaning that if you do not have a dna that allows to learn to write the you cannot learn to write, yet you are not born with the ability you are only born with the tools to learn it.

what im trying to do is to distinguish between the things that can be learned and thus which are "known " from birth.