States of Consciousness and Choice: Are Experiences Self-created?

[Pattern-chaser]

It does seem likely that there is not a clear division between consciousness and the unconscious.

On the contrary, the division is as clear as it is arbitrary. When we consider our minds, we gather together those parts of our minds that are open to introspection, and we call them "conscious". What remains, the bits that are not visible to introspection, we call "unconscious". The division is quite clear, but I think it's the other word I used that is the important one here: "arbitrary".

[JackDaydream]

It does seem likely that there is not a clear division between consciousness and the unconscious.

On the contrary, the division is as clear as it is arbitrary. When we consider our minds, we gather together those parts of our minds that are open to introspection, and we call them "conscious". What remains, the bits that are not visible to introspection, we call "unconscious". The division is quite clear, but I think it's the other word I used that is the important one here: "arbitrary".

I will explain the basis on which I am suggesting that there is a spectrum of consciousness and unconscious rather than a clear division. At any given moment, a person has a focus of attention because it is not possible to think of everything one has ever thought of. The spectrum of conscious awareness is about being able to bring up aspects which have been accumulated or buried. Some may be nearer to the surface of recall than others and it may be that something will trigger a memory which has been almost lost.

The nature of memories and the unconscious are connected to the brain to a large extent. I had a strange experience a few years ago. I was lying on my bed and I accidentally bumped my head against the wall. In doing so, I got vivid memories of a fairly significant nature from early childhood at the time when I bumped my head. I am not absolutely sure that the memories are real but I think that they are. Of course, I am not advocating banging the head against the wall as a means for getting connected to the aspects of the unconscious or subconscious.

Also, dreams are in between the unconscious and the conscious, especially lucid dreams and borderline sleep experiences. It may be that there are layers between the two although the idea of layers places it in physical dimensions. The brain and nervous system are the basis for consciousnness, and it is likely that the storage or wiring of memories in the brain is intricate and complex.

Another aspect of the issue is whether the unconscious goes beyond the brain and the five senses. Here, I am thinking of the idea of a possible sixth sense. This is of particular relevance for thinking about premonitions. I have had some strong premonitions in the past and was troubled by them as often it was of people dying a short while before they died. These can be viewed, as Jung suggested, as synchronicities, as 'meaningful coincidences'. It may be about being able to tune into inherent patterns and the sixth sense may be about the subliminal and it may be difficult to understand the exact way the subliminal may be interconnected to the wiring of sensory consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

It does seem likely that there is not a clear division between consciousness and the unconscious.

On the contrary, the division is as clear as it is arbitrary. When we consider our minds, we gather together those parts of our minds that are open to introspection, and we call them "conscious". What remains, the bits that are not visible to introspection, we call "unconscious". The division is quite clear, but I think it's the other word I used that is the important one here: "arbitrary".

I will explain the basis on which I am suggesting that there is a spectrum of consciousness and unconscious rather than a clear division. At any given moment, a person has a focus of attention because it is not possible to think of everything one has ever thought of. The spectrum of conscious awareness is about being able to bring up aspects which have been accumulated or buried. Some may be nearer to the surface of recall than others and it may be that something will trigger a memory which has been almost lost.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Our understandings of what is "unconscious" seem quite different. You would seem to describe something that happened in the past, that was 'conscious' — i.e. we were aware of it — at the time, but has since been consigned to memory, and maybe lost or misplaced, as 'unconscious'. I would not consider that thing to be 'unconscious' at all.

Setting aside when we forget stuff, our memories are of things that were conscious, and that can become conscious again when we choose to recall them. They are available to our introspection whenever we want them. They are not meaningfully unconscious if they are available for introspective examination.

In thinking about our 'unconscious minds', I am thinking of things of which we were not, are not, and will not be, conscious or aware. The best-known example is of the poem Kubla Khan, which came to Coleridge, apparently fully formed. Our guess is that the poem was composed, wholly outside of conscious awareness, by Coleridge's unconscious mind. This is very different from a lost or misplaced memory.

According to Coleridge's preface to Kubla Khan, the poem was composed one night after he experienced an opium-influenced dream after reading a work describing Shangdu, the summer capital of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China founded by Kublai Khan (Emperor Shizu of Yuan). Upon waking, he set about writing lines of poetry that came to him from the dream until he was interrupted by "a person from Porlock". The poem could not be completed according to its original 200–300 line plan as the interruption caused him to forget the lines.

But I am also thinking of the experiments that show that the apparently conscious decision to move my hand was actually made, unconsciously, some little time before I took the conscious decision to move. This too is included in what we term the 'unconscious' mind.

I am thinking of the unconscious control and regulation of bodily function too. This stuff may be pretty primitive, but it's there, and it takes place, and we could not function without it. ... And it is not available for introspection; it is unconscious.

What do you think?

[JackDaydream]

It does seem likely that there is not a clear division between consciousness and the unconscious.

On the contrary, the division is as clear as it is arbitrary. When we consider our minds, we gather together those parts of our minds that are open to introspection, and we call them "conscious". What remains, the bits that are not visible to introspection, we call "unconscious". The division is quite clear, but I think it's the other word I used that is the important one here: "arbitrary".

I will explain the basis on which I am suggesting that there is a spectrum of consciousness and unconscious rather than a clear division. At any given moment, a person has a focus of attention because it is not possible to think of everything one has ever thought of. The spectrum of conscious awareness is about being able to bring up aspects which have been accumulated or buried. Some may be nearer to the surface of recall than others and it may be that something will trigger a memory which has been almost lost.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Our understandings of what is "unconscious" seem quite different. You would seem to describe something that happened in the past, that was 'conscious' — i.e. we were aware of it — at the time, but has since been consigned to memory, and maybe lost or misplaced, as 'unconscious'. I would not consider that thing to be 'unconscious' at all.

Setting aside when we forget stuff, our memories are of things that were conscious, and that can become conscious again when we choose to recall them. They are available to our introspection whenever we want them. They are not meaningfully unconscious if they are available for introspective examination.

In thinking about our 'unconscious minds', I am thinking of things of which we were not, are not, and will not be, conscious or aware. The best-known example is of the poem Kubla Khan, which came to Coleridge, apparently fully formed. Our guess is that the poem was composed, wholly outside of conscious awareness, by Coleridge's unconscious mind. This is very different from a lost or misplaced memory.

According to Coleridge's preface to Kubla Khan, the poem was composed one night after he experienced an opium-influenced dream after reading a work describing Shangdu, the summer capital of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China founded by Kublai Khan (Emperor Shizu of Yuan). Upon waking, he set about writing lines of poetry that came to him from the dream until he was interrupted by "a person from Porlock". The poem could not be completed according to its original 200–300 line plan as the interruption caused him to forget the lines.

But I am also thinking of the experiments that show that the apparently conscious decision to move my hand was actually made, unconsciously, some little time before I took the conscious decision to move. This too is included in what we term the 'unconscious' mind.

I am thinking of the unconscious control and regulation of bodily function too. This stuff may be pretty primitive, but it's there, and it takes place, and we could not function without it. ... And it is not available for introspection; it is unconscious.

What do you think?

Your point about the movement of the hand does point to the way in which unconscious and conscious intentionality are particularly complex. Some actions are made almost on an instinctive level. If I am about to fall over, for example, I am likely to lift my hand to touch hold of something in order to break the fall. There is no time to stop and think.

Even in social discourse there is a spontaneity which seems to be based on basic unconscious agendas. For instance, if someone who I have a strong attachment to says that they never wish to see me again, I am likely to rush to say something to try and prevent this. This is like an intuitive aspect of self, almost equivalent to instinct. It is as if there are depths of the human mind, consciousness and other less conscious aspects which are based on motivation.

[Gertie]

Jack

Wolinsky points to the possible awareness of such states of consciousness in the following way,
'What is exciting about recognising and experiencing the multitude of trance states we create throughout the day is that it leads to a transcendent experience of oneself. Each trance state has a beginning point, a middle point, and an end point. As you begin to step outside of your trances by identifying these components parts, what you begin to see is that the only common factor is you'. Also, he suggests, 'You are not that which passes through your consciousness, you are not your thoughts, your emotions, your ideas, memories, fears.'

I disagree. Philosophically I think ''I'' am my 'thoughts, emotions, ideas, memories, fears' , and itches, imaginings, desires, moods, sensations, seeings, hearings, etc, at any moment. What else is my sense of being a Me but all the experiential states I have? And what else is 'Being Me' but my experience of being me at any moment?

A trance type of state is just another experiential sense of being 'Me' in that ongoing experience being of Me.

Therapeutically there are ways of making that experiential ''what it is like to be Me'' more rewarding, that's a psychological matter. And what really counts.

[JackDaydream]

Jack

Wolinsky points to the possible awareness of such states of consciousness in the following way,
'What is exciting about recognising and experiencing the multitude of trance states we create throughout the day is that it leads to a transcendent experience of oneself. Each trance state has a beginning point, a middle point, and an end point. As you begin to step outside of your trances by identifying these components parts, what you begin to see is that the only common factor is you'. Also, he suggests, 'You are not that which passes through your consciousness, you are not your thoughts, your emotions, your ideas, memories, fears.'

I disagree. Philosophically I think ''I'' am my 'thoughts, emotions, ideas, memories, fears' , and itches, imaginings, desires, moods, sensations, seeings, hearings, etc, at any moment. What else is my sense of being a Me but all the experiential states I have? And what else is 'Being Me' but my experience of being me at any moment?

A trance type of state is just another experiential sense of being 'Me' in that ongoing experience being of Me.

Therapeutically there are ways of making that experiential ''what it is like to be Me'' more rewarding, that's a psychological matter. And what really counts.

I find it hard to know to what extent one is one's thoughts and it does depend to what extent there is a self and, how human identity is understood. The identification of 'I' goes back to Descartes, which was the basis for dualism. In some ways, it does seem that the 'I' is the core of being. For example, as I am writing this post, I am aware of myself as a conscious entity with thoughts in response to what you have said. On the other hand, as I try to formulate the basis of my own thoughts, I am aware of a stream of related ideas, based on what I have read, discussed with others, and my own reflections. So, it is like drawing into a well. It is about flow of thoughts and it is not always clear where they all come from. Also, I have done a little bit of meditation and, in that, it does seem that it is possible to see the flow of thoughts come and going without identifying with the thoughts completely.

The idea of trance consciousness is perhaps more workable with some Eastern philosophies of consciousness, in which the self is seen as more fluid a construct. However, even if it is possible to see the idea of trance consciousness as an important aspect of understanding the self and consciousness, it is probably difficult to step outside of such trances because they are probably at the core of processing thoughts, fantasies and the deepest aspects of personal narratives of identity.

[JackDaydream]

It does seem likely that there is not a clear division between consciousness and the unconscious.

On the contrary, the division is as clear as it is arbitrary. When we consider our minds, we gather together those parts of our minds that are open to introspection, and we call them "conscious". What remains, the bits that are not visible to introspection, we call "unconscious". The division is quite clear, but I think it's the other word I used that is the important one here: "arbitrary".

I will explain the basis on which I am suggesting that there is a spectrum of consciousness and unconscious rather than a clear division. At any given moment, a person has a focus of attention because it is not possible to think of everything one has ever thought of. The spectrum of conscious awareness is about being able to bring up aspects which have been accumulated or buried. Some may be nearer to the surface of recall than others and it may be that something will trigger a memory which has been almost lost.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Our understandings of what is "unconscious" seem quite different. You would seem to describe something that happened in the past, that was 'conscious' — i.e. we were aware of it — at the time, but has since been consigned to memory, and maybe lost or misplaced, as 'unconscious'. I would not consider that thing to be 'unconscious' at all.

Setting aside when we forget stuff, our memories are of things that were conscious, and that can become conscious again when we choose to recall them. They are available to our introspection whenever we want them. They are not meaningfully unconscious if they are available for introspective examination.

In thinking about our 'unconscious minds', I am thinking of things of which we were not, are not, and will not be, conscious or aware. The best-known example is of the poem Kubla Khan, which came to Coleridge, apparently fully formed. Our guess is that the poem was composed, wholly outside of conscious awareness, by Coleridge's unconscious mind. This is very different from a lost or misplaced memory.

According to Coleridge's preface to Kubla Khan, the poem was composed one night after he experienced an opium-influenced dream after reading a work describing Shangdu, the summer capital of the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty of China founded by Kublai Khan (Emperor Shizu of Yuan). Upon waking, he set about writing lines of poetry that came to him from the dream until he was interrupted by "a person from Porlock". The poem could not be completed according to its original 200–300 line plan as the interruption caused him to forget the lines.

But I am also thinking of the experiments that show that the apparently conscious decision to move my hand was actually made, unconsciously, some little time before I took the conscious decision to move. This too is included in what we term the 'unconscious' mind.

I am thinking of the unconscious control and regulation of bodily function too. This stuff may be pretty primitive, but it's there, and it takes place, and we could not function without it. ... And it is not available for introspection; it is unconscious.

What do you think?

I think that I can relate to what you are saying, in the sense that most bodily aspects are fairly automatic. For example, we don't have to think to digest food, to breathe or to make heartbeats. In this way, they could be described as more or less unconscious. The reason why I say my 'more or less unconscious' is because there is the importance of psychosomatic influence. For example, when people are stressed they are more likely to get ill, with immune depletion and increased blood pressure. It is possible to aid these with relaxation techniques, but, at the same time, it would probably be difficult to gain complete conscious control over the many bodily aspects of oneself.

[Gertie]

Jack

I disagree. Philosophically I think ''I'' am my 'thoughts, emotions, ideas, memories, fears' , and itches, imaginings, desires, moods, sensations, seeings, hearings, etc, at any moment. What else is my sense of being a Me but all the experiential states I have? And what else is 'Being Me' but my experience of being me at any moment?

A trance type of state is just another experiential sense of being 'Me' in that ongoing experience being of Me.

Therapeutically there are ways of making that experiential ''what it is like to be Me'' more rewarding, that's a psychological matter. And what really counts.

I find it hard to know to what extent one is one's thoughts and it does depend to what extent there is a self and, how human identity is understood. The identification of 'I' goes back to Descartes, which was the basis for dualism. In some ways, it does seem that the 'I' is the core of being. For example, as I am writing this post, I am aware of myself as a conscious entity with thoughts in response to what you have said. On the other hand, as I try to formulate the basis of my own thoughts, I am aware of a stream of related ideas, based on what I have read, discussed with others, and my own reflections. So, it is like drawing into a well. It is about flow of thoughts and it is not always clear where they all come from.

If we think of this in terms of neural correlation, then there are billions of neural connections firing at any time, some of which will manifest as phenomenal experience at any given moment. My view is that ''Me'' is whatever is manifesting as conscious experience right here right now. But there is this 'well' of neurally codified experience underlying each moment, which represents my ongoing identity as 'Gertie', which is in effect my personality, my memories, my genetic predispositions, my experiential backstory - all codified in neural patterns of connections. Which play into the bits that manifest experientially in any given moment. And as you say, it's not always clear where they come from in that unimaginably complex, interacting subterranean neural well.

So when I think about meditation for example, I'll have a different set of neurally codified memories sparking, and neurally linked emotions, thoughts, etc to you. Gertie thinking about meditation right now will be different to Jack thinking about meditation right now, as our unique neural connections spark.

In my view, the act of meditating is just one way of being me, not fundamentally different to being me riding a roller coaster, doing the ironing or having a special moment with a loved one. Meditating (in my limited experience) involves trying to concentrate exclusively on one very unstimulating thing. And what it reveals is what it's like to be me when I concentrate on one very unstimulating thing. Because I don't believe there's any 'essence of me' or consciousness, which isn't simply the content of whatever my consciousness is at any moment. Consciousness is its content. And I am whatever my consciousness is manifesting at any moment.

That might sound sceptical or banal, but it's actually as amazing and meaningful as anything anything anyone can be.

If I'm wrong, then that implies some dualistic Me which exists independantly of my conscious experience. My dead body? A spirit or soul, which exists whether or not it experiences? But what then is a non-experiencing Me? I don't think a non-experiencing Me is worth calling Me. Which means, I think, I am my experiencing.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your point about the movement of the hand does point to the way in which unconscious and conscious intentionality are particularly complex. Some actions are made almost on an instinctive level. If I am about to fall over, for example, I am likely to lift my hand to touch hold of something in order to break the fall. There is no time to stop and think.

Even in social discourse there is a spontaneity which seems to be based on basic unconscious agendas. For instance, if someone who I have a strong attachment to says that they never wish to see me again, I am likely to rush to say something to try and prevent this. This is like an intuitive aspect of self, almost equivalent to instinct. It is as if there are depths of the human mind, consciousness and other less conscious aspects which are based on motivation.

I get the feeling from your words that you don't really accept the existence of things that are unconscious — things of which we are, and must remain, unaware — and maybe of the 'unconscious mind' — all of the human mind except the small corner that is the 'conscious mind' — too. That's not to say that we can't see the doings of the unconscious at all: Coleridge's poem might have been composed unconsciously, but the result was passed to the conscious mind, or we would never have known it was there!

That of which we are unaware is not "less conscious", it's unconscious.

[JackDaydream]

Your point about the movement of the hand does point to the way in which unconscious and conscious intentionality are particularly complex. Some actions are made almost on an instinctive level. If I am about to fall over, for example, I am likely to lift my hand to touch hold of something in order to break the fall. There is no time to stop and think.

Even in social discourse there is a spontaneity which seems to be based on basic unconscious agendas. For instance, if someone who I have a strong attachment to says that they never wish to see me again, I am likely to rush to say something to try and prevent this. This is like an intuitive aspect of self, almost equivalent to instinct. It is as if there are depths of the human mind, consciousness and other less conscious aspects which are based on motivation.

I get the feeling from your words that you don't really accept the existence of things that are unconscious — things of which we are, and must remain, unaware — and maybe of the 'unconscious mind' — all of the human mind except the small corner that is the 'conscious mind' — too. That's not to say that we can't see the doings of the unconscious at all: Coleridge's poem might have been composed unconsciously, but the result was passed to the conscious mind, or we would never have known it was there!

That of which we are unaware is not "less conscious", it's unconscious.

It is not so much that I don't believe in the unconscious completely but more a question of what is the unconscious exactly? That is because sometimes unconsciousness is almost identified with absence of life or nothingness. Of course, nature works without consciousness in the sense in which it exists in human beings. Even in humans it is radically different from in animals, but with sentience. I am not sure if I am creeping into the territory of panpsychism, but I am inclined to think that there is some kind of conscious purpose, or will, inherent in all aspects of nature. Even Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest seems to have an inherent order, of some kind of conscious purpose, although I am aware that conscious purpose is not necessarily the same as consciousnes, or is it? That is where I am not sure, in differentiating this.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am inclined to think that there is some kind of conscious purpose, or will, inherent in all aspects of nature. Even Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest seems to have an inherent order, of some kind of conscious purpose, although I am aware that conscious purpose is not necessarily the same as consciousness, or is it? That is where I am not sure, in differentiating this.

Is "conscious" necessary here? Consider:

I am inclined to think that there is some kind of purpose, or will, inherent in all aspects of nature. Even Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest seems to have an inherent order, of some kind of purpose, although I am aware that purpose is not necessarily the same as consciousness, or is it?

My version seems to mean the same, but without the distraction of all those references to consciousness.

[JackDaydream]

Jack

I disagree. Philosophically I think ''I'' am my 'thoughts, emotions, ideas, memories, fears' , and itches, imaginings, desires, moods, sensations, seeings, hearings, etc, at any moment. What else is my sense of being a Me but all the experiential states I have? And what else is 'Being Me' but my experience of being me at any moment?

A trance type of state is just another experiential sense of being 'Me' in that ongoing experience being of Me.

Therapeutically there are ways of making that experiential ''what it is like to be Me'' more rewarding, that's a psychological matter. And what really counts.

I find it hard to know to what extent one is one's thoughts and it does depend to what extent there is a self and, how human identity is understood. The identification of 'I' goes back to Descartes, which was the basis for dualism. In some ways, it does seem that the 'I' is the core of being. For example, as I am writing this post, I am aware of myself as a conscious entity with thoughts in response to what you have said. On the other hand, as I try to formulate the basis of my own thoughts, I am aware of a stream of related ideas, based on what I have read, discussed with others, and my own reflections. So, it is like drawing into a well. It is about flow of thoughts and it is not always clear where they all come from.

If we think of this in terms of neural correlation, then there are billions of neural connections firing at any time, some of which will manifest as phenomenal experience at any given moment. My view is that ''Me'' is whatever is manifesting as conscious experience right here right now. But there is this 'well' of neurally codified experience underlying each moment, which represents my ongoing identity as 'Gertie', which is in effect my personality, my memories, my genetic predispositions, my experiential backstory - all codified in neural patterns of connections. Which play into the bits that manifest experientially in any given moment. And as you say, it's not always clear where they come from in that unimaginably complex, interacting subterranean neural well.

So when I think about meditation for example, I'll have a different set of neurally codified memories sparking, and neurally linked emotions, thoughts, etc to you. Gertie thinking about meditation right now will be different to Jack thinking about meditation right now, as our unique neural connections spark.

In my view, the act of meditating is just one way of being me, not fundamentally different to being me riding a roller coaster, doing the ironing or having a special moment with a loved one. Meditating (in my limited experience) involves trying to concentrate exclusively on one very unstimulating thing. And what it reveals is what it's like to be me when I concentrate on one very unstimulating thing. Because I don't believe there's any 'essence of me' or consciousness, which isn't simply the content of whatever my consciousness is at any moment. Consciousness is its content. And I am whatever my consciousness is manifesting at any moment.

That might sound sceptical or banal, but it's actually as amazing and meaningful as anything anything anyone can be.

If I'm wrong, then that implies some dualistic Me which exists independantly of my conscious experience. My dead body? A spirit or soul, which exists whether or not it experiences? But what then is a non-experiencing Me? I don't think a non-experiencing Me is worth calling Me. Which means, I think, I am my experiencing.

Reading your post I am wondering if the idea of 'me' is different from 'I' in a subtle but important way. Me seems to be about reference to oneself as a being but from.a more distant or detached perspective. I seems to be about subjective reference. The idea of a non-experiencing me could be about someone asleep but I am not sure that a dead person would still be a 'me'. The I seems to have potential to exist beyond death in the form of dualism. In many ways, it seems that the dualistic split is necessary for the idea of the survival of the soul beyond death. It is probable that a lot of people find the idea of life after death hard to accept because they don't believe in the split inherent in dualism.

It is interesting to think about where the idea of spirit fits into the picture and it does depend on what someone means by spirit. It can be a term to describe the animating factor in life, as the life force. Alternatively, it can be seen as some kind of entity, independently of a body, like some ethereal being. However, this may be more in the context of belief in ghosts. Another interesting idea of spirit, which is extremely different is Hegel's idea of spirit, which is more about some inherent purpose.

I am sorry if I have gone off into a tangent in speaking about the ideas of spirit and souls, but it is hard not to dp so when referring to these terms. Often, such terms may be seen as almost obsolete and the terms self and consciousness are used instead. However, in choosing these terms, there is a potential vagueness too. The self can be seen as the subjective experience of consciousness. However, even the term consciousness has a certain amount of ambiguity because it can be used to refer to the clinical definition of being alive, such as being rousable or about states of self awareness. In that way, consciousness may be a spectrum of infinite possibilities.

[JackDaydream]

I am inclined to think that there is some kind of conscious purpose, or will, inherent in all aspects of nature. Even Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest seems to have an inherent order, of some kind of conscious purpose, although I am aware that conscious purpose is not necessarily the same as consciousness, or is it? That is where I am not sure, in differentiating this.

Is "conscious" necessary here? Consider:

I am inclined to think that there is some kind of purpose, or will, inherent in all aspects of nature. Even Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest seems to have an inherent order, of some kind of purpose, although I am aware that purpose is not necessarily the same as consciousness, or is it?

My version seems to mean the same, but without the distraction of all those references to consciousness.

Consciousness is a bit of a buzz word in philosophy and it may be that in a lot of ways it is used to gloss over many areas which are hard to explain. Purpose is one of them. It may be that in the past, people often used the term 'God' to explain essential purpose, or will inherent in life. The reason why I am saying this is because when I read some texts on Buddhism it seems that what some theists refer to as God, the Buddhists often refer to as consciousness itself.

Within secular philosophy, the existence of consciousness is often fathomed on the basis of science. However, there are still ambiguities, especially in terms of what it means to be a conscious self or being. Sometimes, the term ego consciousness may be used but it is here that the initial idea of trance may come in because it may involve underlying fantasised or constructed sense of personalities, especially in what it means to be a self or a person. This may be important in the idea of consciousness because being a person is usually part of what is understood to be consciousness, in its human form.

[Gertie]

Jack

I find it hard to know to what extent one is one's thoughts and it does depend to what extent there is a self and, how human identity is understood. The identification of 'I' goes back to Descartes, which was the basis for dualism. In some ways, it does seem that the 'I' is the core of being. For example, as I am writing this post, I am aware of myself as a conscious entity with thoughts in response to what you have said. On the other hand, as I try to formulate the basis of my own thoughts, I am aware of a stream of related ideas, based on what I have read, discussed with others, and my own reflections. So, it is like drawing into a well. It is about flow of thoughts and it is not always clear where they all come from.

If we think of this in terms of neural correlation, then there are billions of neural connections firing at any time, some of which will manifest as phenomenal experience at any given moment. My view is that ''Me'' is whatever is manifesting as conscious experience right here right now. But there is this 'well' of neurally codified experience underlying each moment, which represents my ongoing identity as 'Gertie', which is in effect my personality, my memories, my genetic predispositions, my experiential backstory - all codified in neural patterns of connections. Which play into the bits that manifest experientially in any given moment. And as you say, it's not always clear where they come from in that unimaginably complex, interacting subterranean neural well.

So when I think about meditation for example, I'll have a different set of neurally codified memories sparking, and neurally linked emotions, thoughts, etc to you. Gertie thinking about meditation right now will be different to Jack thinking about meditation right now, as our unique neural connections spark.

In my view, the act of meditating is just one way of being me, not fundamentally different to being me riding a roller coaster, doing the ironing or having a special moment with a loved one. Meditating (in my limited experience) involves trying to concentrate exclusively on one very unstimulating thing. And what it reveals is what it's like to be me when I concentrate on one very unstimulating thing. Because I don't believe there's any 'essence of me' or consciousness, which isn't simply the content of whatever my consciousness is at any moment. Consciousness is its content. And I am whatever my consciousness is manifesting at any moment.

That might sound sceptical or banal, but it's actually as amazing and meaningful as anything anything anyone can be.

If I'm wrong, then that implies some dualistic Me which exists independantly of my conscious experience. My dead body? A spirit or soul, which exists whether or not it experiences? But what then is a non-experiencing Me? I don't think a non-experiencing Me is worth calling Me. Which means, I think, I am my experiencing.

Reading your post I am wondering if the idea of 'me' is different from 'I' in a subtle but important way. Me seems to be about reference to oneself as a being but from.a more distant or detached perspective. I seems to be about subjective reference. The idea of a non-experiencing me could be about someone asleep but I am not sure that a dead person would still be a 'me'.

My view doesn't encompass that I/Me distinction.

I'm suggesting I/Me is an experiential process, so when the process stops there's no I/Me present. When my physical body sleeps or is dead, there's no Subject-Me happening at that time. (Tho we colloquially use those terms differently).

The challenge this position makes to those who disagree is what specifically is the self if it isn't this subjective, experiential sense of being a Me?

The I seems to have potential to exist beyond death in the form of dualism. In many ways, it seems that the dualistic split is necessary for the idea of the survival of the soul beyond death. It is probable that a lot of people find the idea of life after death hard to accept because they don't believe in the split inherent in dualism.

The scepticism is based on the available evidence isn't it? Neural correlation suggests brain death means the end of experience, and the evidence that some self continues after death comes via anecdotal reports which are hard to confirm. If the evidence was credible, we'd generally believe it. However, we can speculate about souls and spirits as post-death Selfs, and in what type of non-testable world they might exist - but we can speculate about all sorts. So some different type of compelling credible justification needs to be made - the burden is to justify the speculation. Meanwhile the natural assumption to me is go by the available evidence till something more credible comes along. But who knows...

It is interesting to think about where the idea of spirit fits into the picture and it does depend on what someone means by spirit. It can be a term to describe the animating factor in life, as the life force. Alternatively, it can be seen as some kind of entity, independently of a body, like some ethereal being. However, this may be more in the context of belief in ghosts. Another interesting idea of spirit, which is extremely different is Hegel's idea of spirit, which is more about some inherent purpose.

I don't know much about Hegel's idea of spirit, but it seems to me the concept of an underlying inherent purpose within the nature of the universe implies mindedness. But Objects which don't have experience can't have purpose, because 'purpose' is a characteristic we subjects create and assign to stuff and processes. So to my thinking you'd need to ascribe this purpose to eg a minded creator infusing the stuff of the universe with purposeful mindedness, or a minded creator providing the purpose through directing the universe, or simply a panpsychic universe where everything contains some element of mindful purpose. And make your case for that type of universe. I don't know if Hegel follows through in that way?

Otherwise what does it actually mean to say the universe has purpose?

I am sorry if I have gone off into a tangent in speaking about the ideas of spirit and souls, but it is hard not to dp so when referring to these terms. Often, such terms may be seen as almost obsolete and the terms self and consciousness are used instead. However, in choosing these terms, there is a potential vagueness too. The self can be seen as the subjective experience of consciousness. However, even the term consciousness has a certain amount of ambiguity because it can be used to refer to the clinical definition of being alive, such as being rousable or about states of self awareness. In that way, consciousness may be a spectrum of infinite possibilities.

Consciousness can be a vague term, but phenomenal experience is the specific key aspect here. Which Nagel neatly describes as ''something it is like to be''. We all directly know what that means.

My claim is the Self/I/Me is the experiential something it is like to be Gertie, or Jack, etc. The experiential sense of being a self is the self, there's nothing else to it.

My challenge is if it's not that - what specifically is it?

[JackDaydream]

Jack

I find it hard to know to what extent one is one's thoughts and it does depend to what extent there is a self and, how human identity is understood. The identification of 'I' goes back to Descartes, which was the basis for dualism. In some ways, it does seem that the 'I' is the core of being. For example, as I am writing this post, I am aware of myself as a conscious entity with thoughts in response to what you have said. On the other hand, as I try to formulate the basis of my own thoughts, I am aware of a stream of related ideas, based on what I have read, discussed with others, and my own reflections. So, it is like drawing into a well. It is about flow of thoughts and it is not always clear where they all come from.

If we think of this in terms of neural correlation, then there are billions of neural connections firing at any time, some of which will manifest as phenomenal experience at any given moment. My view is that ''Me'' is whatever is manifesting as conscious experience right here right now. But there is this 'well' of neurally codified experience underlying each moment, which represents my ongoing identity as 'Gertie', which is in effect my personality, my memories, my genetic predispositions, my experiential backstory - all codified in neural patterns of connections. Which play into the bits that manifest experientially in any given moment. And as you say, it's not always clear where they come from in that unimaginably complex, interacting subterranean neural well.

So when I think about meditation for example, I'll have a different set of neurally codified memories sparking, and neurally linked emotions, thoughts, etc to you. Gertie thinking about meditation right now will be different to Jack thinking about meditation right now, as our unique neural connections spark.

In my view, the act of meditating is just one way of being me, not fundamentally different to being me riding a roller coaster, doing the ironing or having a special moment with a loved one. Meditating (in my limited experience) involves trying to concentrate exclusively on one very unstimulating thing. And what it reveals is what it's like to be me when I concentrate on one very unstimulating thing. Because I don't believe there's any 'essence of me' or consciousness, which isn't simply the content of whatever my consciousness is at any moment. Consciousness is its content. And I am whatever my consciousness is manifesting at any moment.

That might sound sceptical or banal, but it's actually as amazing and meaningful as anything anything anyone can be.

If I'm wrong, then that implies some dualistic Me which exists independantly of my conscious experience. My dead body? A spirit or soul, which exists whether or not it experiences? But what then is a non-experiencing Me? I don't think a non-experiencing Me is worth calling Me. Which means, I think, I am my experiencing.

Reading your post I am wondering if the idea of 'me' is different from 'I' in a subtle but important way. Me seems to be about reference to oneself as a being but from.a more distant or detached perspective. I seems to be about subjective reference. The idea of a non-experiencing me could be about someone asleep but I am not sure that a dead person would still be a 'me'.

My view doesn't encompass that I/Me distinction.

I'm suggesting I/Me is an experiential process, so when the process stops there's no I/Me present. When my physical body sleeps or is dead, there's no Subject-Me happening at that time. (Tho we colloquially use those terms differently).

The challenge this position makes to those who disagree is what specifically is the self if it isn't this subjective, experiential sense of being a Me?

The I seems to have potential to exist beyond death in the form of dualism. In many ways, it seems that the dualistic split is necessary for the idea of the survival of the soul beyond death. It is probable that a lot of people find the idea of life after death hard to accept because they don't believe in the split inherent in dualism.

The scepticism is based on the available evidence isn't it? Neural correlation suggests brain death means the end of experience, and the evidence that some self continues after death comes via anecdotal reports which are hard to confirm. If the evidence was credible, we'd generally believe it. However, we can speculate about souls and spirits as post-death Selfs, and in what type of non-testable world they might exist - but we can speculate about all sorts. So some different type of compelling credible justification needs to be made - the burden is to justify the speculation. Meanwhile the natural assumption to me is go by the available evidence till something more credible comes along. But who knows...

It is interesting to think about where the idea of spirit fits into the picture and it does depend on what someone means by spirit. It can be a term to describe the animating factor in life, as the life force. Alternatively, it can be seen as some kind of entity, independently of a body, like some ethereal being. However, this may be more in the context of belief in ghosts. Another interesting idea of spirit, which is extremely different is Hegel's idea of spirit, which is more about some inherent purpose.

I don't know much about Hegel's idea of spirit, but it seems to me the concept of an underlying inherent purpose within the nature of the universe implies mindedness. But Objects which don't have experience can't have purpose, because 'purpose' is a characteristic we subjects create and assign to stuff and processes. So to my thinking you'd need to ascribe this purpose to eg a minded creator infusing the stuff of the universe with purposeful mindedness, or a minded creator providing the purpose through directing the universe, or simply a panpsychic universe where everything contains some element of mindful purpose. And make your case for that type of universe. I don't know if Hegel follows through in that way?

Otherwise what does it actually mean to say the universe has purpose?

I am sorry if I have gone off into a tangent in speaking about the ideas of spirit and souls, but it is hard not to dp so when referring to these terms. Often, such terms may be seen as almost obsolete and the terms self and consciousness are used instead. However, in choosing these terms, there is a potential vagueness too. The self can be seen as the subjective experience of consciousness. However, even the term consciousness has a certain amount of ambiguity because it can be used to refer to the clinical definition of being alive, such as being rousable or about states of self awareness. In that way, consciousness may be a spectrum of infinite possibilities.

Consciousness can be a vague term, but phenomenal experience is the specific key aspect here. Which Nagel neatly describes as ''something it is like to be''. We all directly know what that means.

My claim is the Self/I/Me is the experiential something it is like to be Gertie, or Jack, etc. The experiential sense of being a self is the self, there's nothing else to it.

My challenge is if it's not that - what specifically is it?

I agree with your approach, although there is the question as to whether a person has one distinct personality or subpersonalities. In 'Multiplcit: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self', Rita Carter argues queries that the idea of singularity of consciousness is an illusion. She suggests,
'The sense of singularity is part of a larger sense of self - a whole bag of cognitive tricks that kick in through childhood. The crucial development is the ability of a child to see itself from outside- an "object" that can be seen (and judged) by others and continues through time.'
She suggests that there is a certain fragility of the self and states of dissociatied consciousness, in connection with defense mechanism. However, she is also referring to the internalisation of various roles as aspects of multiple states of human identity.