What about "conscious" vs. "subconscious"?

To what do you think those 2 terms actually refer?
And what is one vs. the other?

Thinking back to the Psych 101 course I took a few years ago, conscious refers to the things we think and are aware of, while subconscious refers to the processes that go on in the background in our minds, of which we are unaware. This is a very high level explanation and there have been many experiments showing our subconscious makes decisions before we become aware of them. The real question: Who is in control?

I don’t think I can improve on Darron’s answer. Except maybe subconsciously, but then, how would I know?

conscious
and
instinct
?

There is also a much simpler meaning of the subconscious: everything I know, remember, am able to, etc, that is not in my present consciousness, but can become conscious in the moment I need it.
One can compare it with the hard disk and the working memory (RAM) of a computer: everything on the hard disk is subconscious, everything in RAM is conscious, i.e. actively used.

It’s all determined, even what we think of as consciousness. Our consciousness is determined by genes and other natural factors. Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational.
Lois

It's all determined, even what we think of as consciousness. Our consciousness is determined by genes and other natural factors. Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational.
Then explain why consciousness was selected for in evolution. When it plays no role, why did it come into existence?

Here we go again

It is written in the tea leaves.

Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.
But Lois started! :grrr:

Hmmm, interesting.

Is this totally crazy? The subconscious is acquiring information from genes (also nerves and the entire concerted biological system.) and conscious is acquiring information from observations. Then we try to merge the information, make a decision, and get on with whatever it is. I have no source for this thought other than what I derived from this thread.
To what do you think those 2 terms actually refer? And what is one vs. the other?
Do you already know the answer?I don't know your answer. Oh, wait, I said that before I saw your last post.

I think I can come up with a description of what we refer to as “conscious”, that is satisfying to me. But “subconscious” seems trickier to me.

There is also a much simpler meaning of the subconscious: everything I know, remember, am able to, etc, that is not in my present consciousness, but can become conscious in the moment I need it...
Yet everything in my subconscious is not really available to me being conscious of it. Some can be, and is, at some times. Some may never be. Or so it seems.
Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.
But Lois started! :grrr: I would love to understand more about genes. From what little I think I understand, I believe Loisl is right. I think that Lois goes off track at the point where she so confidently, and unilaterally, asserts: "Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational." I think that being conscious and observing also plays a role in "control". (Not in the sense of being THE ultimate control, but in the sense of having an important impact.) In fact, it seems nonsensical to me, to suggest otherwise. If being conscious is not completely superfluous, as Lois suggests, then I wonder, to what degree is it useful? And could it be more useful to become more conscious of what typically remains subconscious?
Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.
But Lois started! :grrr: I would love to understand more about genes. From what little I think I understand, I believe Loisl is right. The genes are blueprints for proteins. If a certain gene is not expressed, then the protein is not produced, i.e. it is dependent of the environment of genes, which is dependent on process in the cell, which are dependent e.g. on what you eat, which is e.g. dependent on what dinner you consciously chose. So everything is causally interdependent, and everything in the causal network plays its role: including consciousness. So to say we are determined by our genes is just as informative that you are influenced by the news or by your own decisions. Everything is caused, but everything is cause for subsequent events too. So, no, Lois is not right, or only in a nearly meaningless way.
Is this totally crazy? The subconscious is acquiring information from genes and conscious is acquiring information from observations. Then we try to merge the information, make a decision, and get on with whatever it is.
In my proposed meaning of 'subconscious' it does not get information from the genes. If you take DarronS' meaning, then you might have a point. A difference between his and my description is that in my understanding the subconscious can in principle become conscious, if you get e.g. in a situation that remembers you of something, or your slumbering knowledge is needed, or you are under hypnosis, or practicing meditation etc etc. But of course there are also a lot of processes running in the brain you will never be aware of: you will never be aware of which nerves are firing when you think about the colour red, or of the metabolism of neurons, how much you try (excluding external measuring devices used for neuro imaging). However DarronS wrote that the subconscious of the mind, not of the brain. The question that arises then, is what is a mental phenomenon (i.e. a phenomenon of the mind) that can in principle never be conscious? Maybe some people have examples: maybe subluminal messages? But that is a fussy domain. Whatever meaning you take, no, I would not say the subconscious gets information from the genes.
Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.
But Lois started! :grrr: I would love to understand more about genes. From what little I think I understand, I believe Loisl is right. I think that Lois goes off track at the point where she so confidently, and unilaterally, asserts: "Our consciousness is in control of nothing. It is only observational." I think that being conscious and observing also plays a role in "control". (Not in the sense of being THE ultimate control, but in the sense of having an important impact.) In fact, it seems nonsensical to me, to suggest otherwise. Do you have any empirical evidence for that supposition? Meanwhile we have repeated evidence that we make decisions before we are aware of them. To assume we have conscious control assumes we have free will. Do you have any empirical evidence that we have free will? That our consciousness can supersede genetic and environmental determinants? If being conscious is not completely superfluous, as Lois suggests, then I wonder, to what degree is it useful? And could it be more useful to become more conscious of what typically remains subconscious?
Here we go again
It is written in the tea leaves.
But Lois started! :grrr: I would love to understand more about genes. From what little I think I understand, I believe Loisl is right. The genes are blueprints for proteins. If a certain gene is not expressed, then the protein is not produced, i.e. it is dependent of the environment of genes, which is dependent on process in the cell, which are dependent e.g. on what you eat, which is e.g. dependent on what dinner you consciously chose. So everything is causally interdependent, and everything in the causal network plays its role: including consciousness. So to say we are determined by our genes is just as informative that you are influenced by the news or by your own decisions. Everything is caused, but everything is cause for subsequent events too. So, no, Lois is not right, or only in a nearly meaningless way. Present some evidence that we have conscious control. I have seen none, only speculation and wishful thinking.
Here we go again
:lol: I didn't start it this time. Just happy to put in my two-cents worth and do my best keep the discussion scientific.