I suggest that the concept of "the mind", distinct from the brain, is also a fussy/fuzzy domain.Sorry for the fuzz. Of course I meant 'fuzzy'. And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to make: if you talk about firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, about electro-chemical pulse, you talk about the brain. If you talk about feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious, we are talking about the mind. ... I can agree with that distinction of the terms brain and "mind", UNLESS, it leads one to forget or conclude that "feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious" are not ALSO products of "firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, ... electro-chemical pulse", that occur mostly in the brain (along with the assist and support of other organs, such as organs related to perception, and those involved in hormone distribution, and organs involved in speech production).
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 sipersede genetic and environmental determinants?I believe that would be a misinterpretation, reading too much into studies that basically involved rote behavior and that really only showed that the brain has the ability to anticipate situations and events. JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT: The red quote above is NOT mine. It was inserted by Lois as a response to me.sorry, fixed that.
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. "Or so it seems" is exactly the point! Lois
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? All you have to do is come up with observable and repeatable evidence to support your contention. So far you have none. You can't possibly know that our consciousness is not superfluous. All you have is idle speculation and wishful thinking, which have absolutely no bearing on the scientific method of learning whether anything exists or, if it does, how it might operate. Lois
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. Subconscious comprises 90% of the human mind, where as the conscious mind is only 10% Where did you get that idea and where did you get those figures? So far there is no evidence that a subconscious even exists. . Therefore, the subconscious is more powerful than the conscious mind, which has all the logic, thinking and intellect. The subconscious has no logic or intellect. It function on the basis of instinct and whatever beliefs and ideas that have seeped in subconscious. It does not have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable behavior or thought. Where, pray tell, did you get those ideas? Where did they come from? What objective evidence exists for them? No scientist would accept those idle speculations. I suspect you have just dreamt them up. Due to this lack of judgment, if a belief becomes deep-seated in the subconscious, it is very difficult to convince a person to believe otherwise. (religious fundamentalist) Uncannymind.com. Oh, now THAT's a reliable scientific source!
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. I had not previously thought proteins were as important as they are. What does that have to do with the price of artichokes?
I think Genes do much more than passing a DNA blueprint to RNA to make a specific protein. I also think LoisL is right. Maybe just not by your definition.Maybe a bit more. They might guide enzymes to the place where to find the DNA to be replicated, but the main function is simply to code for strings of amino-acids, also called polypeptides i.e. proteins. I suggest you start reading Wikipedia: - DNA] - Transcription] - Protein biosynthesis] Otherwise you have to take my word for it. I miss any argument in your viewpoint, AMH. You are just saying you believe Lois is right. But all of this has not much to do with the question about conscious/subconscious... He subconscious has never been proven to exist. If you think it does, please provide your objective evidence that it does exist. Lois IS right on the scientific principles and AMH apparently agrees. That doesn't take belief, it only takes an understanding of the scientific method and knowing when it isn't being used.
That seems contrary to your computer analogy of the hard disk as subconscious and ram as conscious the hard disk is 1 source for information to be loaded in ram.Then you are interpreting it differently than I meant, an inherent risk when using comparisons... Where do you see the contradiction? I don't see any. . I think you said the conscious (RAM) does not get information from the subconscious (hard disk) Now I think you meant not from subconscious per SE, but from the protein made by the DNA RNA process.
Is the DNA in a gene being passed to RNA to make protein what you are referring to?In the posting you quoted here I was not saying anything about DNA or proteins, that was my other posting. I relativised Lois' vulgar determinism, showing that which genes are expressed is controlled by the environment including our conscious decisions, and therefore genes do not control us in the absolute sense Lois is presenting. I never said it wqs only genes that control our decisions. i said it's most likely a combination of genes and environment. I have made no absolute statements except to demand we use the scientific method in all scientific investigations and that we avoid idle speculations and claims without evidence Genes are just one of the many causal factors that influence our behaviour. But from the other side our behaviour determines which genes will be expressed (e.g. if I exercise strength training, my genes that code for creating muscle filaments are read). Therefore the metaphor of genes as blueprints for proteins is a much better one than genes that are determining us. There is simply much more going on. See Epigenetics]. Lois puts consciousness at the end of a causal chain (which is already conceptually wrong, because the brain does not 'cause' consciousness; consciousness is what a correct working brain does), that on its turn has no influence at all ("it is only observational", she says). Somehow I just KNOW you have objective evidence for this explanation of how genes work and what causes what. But if consciousness has no causal effects, then it also cannot be an evolutionary advantage: nature would not be able to distinguish between organisms that have consciousness, and organisms that haven't. How do you know "nature" couldn't make that distinction? Where is your objective evidence that "consciousness" is indistinguishable from no consciousness? Where did you get this idea? From what scientific principle did this idea derive? What is "nature" as you use it here, anyway? Can you explain what you mean by it, what you think it is and can you present objective evidence that it exists by your definition?
I started reading this thread a few days ago and wanted to post, but the more I thought about what to write, the less I knew what to write. I'll think I have an idea, but when I think about how to communicate it, I end up getting lost in thinking about it and find out I really don't know what I thought I knew. My poor brain doesn't know what's going on inside of it
but wait, there’s more.
subconscious
Your body takes care of itself,
It’ll even smack you in the head or the gut to get your attention - and correct “one’s” self-destructive behavior.
It will heal itself, it will shoot you full of courage and action, when your conscious wants to hide.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, “My body has taken better care of me, than I have of it!”
At least I had the sense to learn to understand and respect it and pay attention.
So we’ve become a pretty good team, but still…
The subconscious is beyond our awareness, but we can sense it, pay attention, take heed.
It defies neat labels and boxes, all this stuff is all so very fluid.
And now we get to mind expanding . . . . 
Yes it is. The brain is an actual organ made of tissue. The word "mind" is a conceptual language device.The word "brain" is just the same a conceptual language device. Ramble on, VYAZMA.
I can agree with that distinction of the terms brain and "mind", UNLESS, it leads one to forget or conclude that "feelings, thoughts, consciousness, and subconscious" are not ALSO products of "firing neurons, the metabolism of neurons, ... electro-chemical pulse", that occur mostly in the brain (along with the assist and support of other organs, such as organs related to perception, and those involved in hormone distribution, and organs involved in speech production).I hope you don't think that I forget that. I always stressed that the mind is the functioning brain.
So far you have none. You can't possibly know that our consciousness is not superfluous. All you have is idle speculation and wishful thinking, which have absolutely no bearing on the scientific method of learning whether anything exists or, if it does, how it might operate.Yes, we have scientific proof that consciousness plays a role. Evolution selected for it, so it has causal powers. What you fail to see, as always, that the working brain amongst others is consciousness. However, you are asking for the proof of a mind that somehow hovers above the brain and steers the body. That is absurd, and nobody here defends such an idea. But as usual, you do not counter my arguments, but ask for some proof from your dualistic view point: you think that consciousness ist just observation, and nothing more, that a human which has no consciously at all would act exactly the same. Maybe you should read this very short story by Raymond M. Smullyan: An Unfortunate Dualist]
... our poor dualist was quite desperate. Then came the discovery of the miracle drug! Its effect on the taker was to annihilate the soul or mind entirely but to leave the body functioning exactly as before. Absolutely no observable change came over the taker; the body continued to act just as if it still had a soul.Read it, it is not long, and it is fun.
I relativised Lois' vulgar determinism, showing that which genes are expressed is controlled by the environment including our conscious decisions, and therefore genes do not control us in the absolute sense Lois is presenting.I never said it wqs only genes that control our decisions. i said it's most likely a combination of genes and environment. I have made no absolute statements except to demand we use the scientific method in all scientific investigations and that we avoid idle speculations and claims without evidence I also did not say you did. But you make it all one way causality: genes and environment cause our behaviour. But you forget to see that our behaviour changes my environment, and also which genes are expressed. You have a very one dimensional, unscientific view of the causal fabric of the universe.
Somehow I just KNOW you have objective evidence for this explanation of how genes work and what causes what.If somebody here makes dogmatist view, then it is you, Lois. When do I get you explanation of why natural selection selected for conscious organisms? How do you explain that, if consciousness has no causal powers?
But if consciousness has no causal effects, then it also cannot be an evolutionary advantage: nature would not be able to distinguish between organisms that have consciousness, and organisms that haven't.How do you know "nature" couldn't make that distinction? Where is your objective evidence that "consciousness" is indistinguishable from no consciousness? Where did you get this idea? From what scientific principle did this idea derive? What is "nature" as you use it here, anyway? Can you explain what you mean by it, what you think it is and can you present objective evidence that it exists by your definition? Give me the scientific evidence that nature can make a distinction between two different entities, that react causally exactly the same. Can you describe the distinction between two different entities, that react causally exactly the same. How do you do that, scientifically?
Yes it is. The brain is an actual organ made of tissue. The word "mind" is a conceptual language device.The word "brain" is just the same a conceptual language device. Ramble on, VYAZMA. That's it?
GdB-And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to makeYou didn't write "the word brain" here. You compared a human organ with the word "mind". One is an actual thing. The other is a conceptual language device. You then went on to conceptually clarify the difference between the two as if they were independent of one another with each having organ properties. In fact all the properties stem only from the brain. Conceptually clarifying "the difference" between the two is...well...dishonest? Ridiculous? However I do know that you ordinarily have to weave a complex semantic web in order to make your arguments.
Yes it is. The brain is an actual organ made of tissue. The word "mind" is a conceptual language device.The word "brain" is just the same a conceptual language device. Ramble on, VYAZMA. That's it? Yes.
No.GdB-And no, the difference between the brain and the mind is conceptually easy to makeYou didn't write "the word brain" here. You compared a human organ with the word "mind".
One is an actual thing. The other is a conceptual language device.No.
You then went on to conceptually clarify the difference between the two as if they were independent of one another with each having organ properties.No.
In fact all the properties stem only from the brain.Yes. But they are not caused by the brain. Mental properties are a function of the brain, they are aspects of the working brain.
Conceptually clarifying "the difference" between the two is...well...dishonest? Ridiculous?No.
However I do know that you ordinarily have to weave a complex semantic web in order to make your arguments.No. Paintings do not exist, according to you, just paint. Stories do not exist, according to you: an audio book, an ebook, and a paperback can never tell the same story, because they are physically different. But seriously: if it is possible to identify a story independently of its physical form, why would it not be possible for feelings to exist, and identify them, and see the difference between them, without referring to their physical implementations? That does not mean they don't need some physical implementation, but it means they are identifiable without referring to their physical basis. An oral agreement (I hope this correct English) does not have a physical basis on its own. Yet it exists, and it has physical consequences. (e.g. I am there at the appointed time to pay what we agreed upon). Does its dependence on physical states (i.e. a state of my brain) mean that the agreement does not exist? You also have a very naive, one dimensional view of the world you live in VYAZMA. But hey, if you are irritated by these sentences, why should I care? Irritations do not exist! 'Irritation' is just a word, a conceptual device!
You also have a very naive, one dimensional view of the world you live in VYAZMA. But hey, if you are irritated by these sentences, why should I care? Irritations do not exist! 'Irritation' is just a word, a conceptual device!Yes, I'm sorry GdB, carry on with your exposition.