The Darwin Spin Off

[Madelaine McMasters]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

When did I ever say our conscious mind should totally vacate or imply that it does not take two to tango?  Haven't I always said it should simply take a "back seat" in certain endeavors -- this doesn't mean I think conscious mind would ever be COMPLETELY gone.

You didn't say "totally" but you did say "instead of being in primary control". Here's your statement:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Conscious mind needs to take a back seat to the unifying subconscious and unconscious mind instead of being in primary control.

Are you aware that the vast majority of our mental processes are un/subconscious? We've always been well beyond your target goal of putting the conscious mind in the back seat, though we've evolved further away from it than any other organism. I'd be very wary of unraveling that progress.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

So I really can't get behind your notion that the rational mind is so great and that some evil lurks in the 'inferior subconscious or unconscious mind'. These facets of the mind are simply structures and none of them contain any 'evil' in and of themselves.

I couldn't quite buy it either but that's what an article brought up about implicit bias, our subconscious, and that's why I clearly stated 'IF' implicit bias exists in the subconscious mind...  

Early in the discussion you were very much dissing the unconscious mind and insisting the conscious mind was the real you -- the real "me, me, me" I think you said.  Maybe you felt that way because of the effects of the pain pills and the unwelcome dream with the ex?

In any case, it seems as the discussion evolved you developed less negative feelings toward other facets of our minds?

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

When did I ever say our conscious mind should totally vacate or imply that it does not take two to tango?  Haven't I always said it should simply take a "back seat" in certain endeavors -- this doesn't mean I think conscious mind would ever be COMPLETELY gone.

You didn't say "totally" but you did say "instead of being in primary control". Here's your statement:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Conscious mind needs to take a back seat to the unifying subconscious and unconscious mind instead of being in primary control.

Well yes, I think the conscious mind should be a servant of our self and not its master as it is a tool and not our 'self'.  This does leave open what our 'self' is though...

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Are you aware that the vast majority of our mental processes are un/subconscious? We've always been well beyond your target goal of putting the conscious mind in the back seat, though we've evolved further away from it than any other organism. I'd be very wary of unraveling that progress.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

I think we lost a synergy and the resultant lack of communication needed to guide our lives effectively. This was caused by the conscious mind separating itself too much from the rest of the world.

[FairreLilette]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

In any case, it seems as the discussion evolved you developed less negative feelings toward other facets of our minds?

I'm not sure I ever had negative feelings but rather said I think it is over-rated but especially to those in the 20th Century who believed untapping this part of our mind through poisonous drug use (yes, all drugs are poison if the dose is wrong - this is why some drugs are illegal as the toxicity could be too great and the risks of toxic levels and/or death outweigh the benefits) were full of crap and probably leading people towards brain damage not brain-expansion.  I didn't make myself fully clear because it is complicated.  

However, in regards to all of us having implicit bias...how would my father fit in there?  He was a psychologist, an MSW and his work was pioneer in the field of working with autistic children whom could not even speak.  I don't believe my dad had any biases.  Not that I ever witnessed.  So, then a phycologist has a higher trained mind to spot what is really an irrational, generalized belief coming from the subconscious?   Me, a bit confused here.  I don't generalize about people; governments and organizations maybe.  

Edited April 3, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Luna Bliss]

Studies in the 'left' and 'right' brain are interesting, the 'left' brain being our conscious mind (not to be confused with the actual left and right sides of the brain as it was in the past):

"Why is the brain so clearly and profoundly divided? The difference between right and left hemispheres has been puzzled over for centuries.

We now know the left hemisphere is detail-oriented, prefers mechanisms to living things, and is inclined to self-interest, where the right hemisphere has greater breadth, flexibility and generosity.

And yet, despite the left hemisphere’s inferior grasp of reality, why is it increasingly taking precedence in the modern world, with potentially disastrous consequences?

Consultant Psychiatrist, author, and former fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, Dr Iain McGilchrist takes us on a fascinating exploration of the differences between the brain's right and left hemispheres and their effects on society, history and culture. He'll tell the story of the divided brain and the making of the Western world".

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

However, in regards to all of us having implicit bias...how would my father fit in there?  He was a psychologist, an MSW and his work was pioneer in the field of working with autistic children whom could not even speak.  I don't believe my dad had any biases.  Not that I ever witnessed.  So, then a phycologist has a higher trained mind to spot was is really an irrational, generalized belief coming from the subconscious?   Me, a bit confused here.  I don't generalize about people; governments and organizations maybe.  

I think it's possible to access the unconscious mind and erase old 'tracks' (at least some of them) and lay down new 'tracks'.

This is essentially what meditation does in the beginning stages. All this cr*p comes up that has to be processed. Therapy can also achieve this. Both are difficult and painful...especially if we had bad 'tracks' laid down during ineffective parenting and/or socialization. 

[Luna Bliss]

14 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

However, in regards to all of us having implicit bias...how would my father fit in there?  He was a psychologist, an MSW and his work was pioneer in the field of working with autistic children whom could not even speak.  I don't believe my dad had any biases.  Not that I ever witnessed.  So, then a phycologist has a higher trained mind to spot what is really an irrational, generalized belief coming from the subconscious?   Me, a bit confused here.  I don't generalize about people; governments and organizations maybe.  

We all have 'tracks' laid down in our mind via parenting and socialization. Perhaps he had only 'good' ones...or could be you couldn't see any 'bad' ones as they are hard to see in other people if more subtle. A bias does not have to be a 'bad' bias...it's just that we usually think of it that way when we hear the word, but it really simply means we've been conditioned to think of something in a certain way:

BIAS

"Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.^[1]"

 

[FairreLilette]

20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

We all have 'tracks' laid down in our mind via parenting and socialization. Perhaps he had only 'good' ones...or could be you couldn't see any 'bad' ones as they are hard to see in other people if more subtle. A bias does not have to be a 'bad' bias...it's just that we usually think of it that way when we hear the word, but it really simply means we've been conditioned to think of something in a certain way:

BIAS

"Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.^[1]"

 

I think with my dad being in the field he was with his work with autistic children wherein at that time autistic may very well have equated to the hopeless and institutionalization as the only way for these children, we (my Mom and sisters and I) were taught against generalization or generalized thinking because of my dad's work.  It had too in order for us to meet some of my dad's autistic patients, and, also, I think it had too work against generalizing or else we would have been a dysfunctional multi-ethic, multi-cultural neighborhood which we weren't.  We were a my house is your house neighborhood that walked the walk, not talk the talk.

I know I tend to lean towards implicit bias towards governments and certain organizations which this forum has helped me see and helped me take a look at that about myself.  As far as some bias, it is necessary though.  It is seeing the unnecessary from the necessary that we need to sort out though.

To tell you the truth though, I thought, prior to BLM, that society as a whole had progressed beyond generalized thinking and stereotyping.  I was surprised about the Karen thing actually.  I felt most of us have learned to get beyond "that"...that stereotyping thing.  

Edited April 3, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

And yet, despite the left hemisphere’s inferior grasp of reality, why is it increasingly taking precedence in the modern world,

You might find Julian Jaynes' book on the Bicameral Development of the Brain interesting. "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind"

 

The right hemisphere might be the source of supernatural ideas that latch onto concepts such as sacrifice, ritual slaughter, might is right.... I'm not sure that left-hemisphere dominance is quite so disastrous as it's being made out to be.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Profaitchikenz Haiku
reached book down from shelf to read full title, had to pop back up lots of dislodged volumes

[Luna Bliss]

18 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

You might find Julian Jaynes' book on the Bicameral Development of the Brain interesting. "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind"

Did you psychically tune-in to my desktop?   😉  I had the The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind open there:

It's freee to read:

http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/Julian_Jaynes_The_Origin_of_Consciousness.pdf

Looks like it could be interesting. Though written in the 1960's and 70's he starts off writing like one of the Romantics in the 19th century:

                        The Problem Of Consciousness

O,  WHAT  A  WORLD  of  unseen  visions  and  heard  silences,  this  insubstantial  country  of  the  mind!   What  ineffable  essences,  these  touchless  rememberings  and  unshowable  reveries!    And  the  privacy  of  it  all!    A  secret  theater  of  speechless  monologue  and  prevenient  counsel,  an  invisible  mansion  of  all  moods,  musings,  and  mysteries,  an  infinite  resort  of  disappointments  and  discoveries.  A whole  kingdom  where  each  of  us  reigns  reclusively  alone,  questioning  what  we  will,  commanding  what  we  can.    A  hidden  hermitage  where  we  may  study  out  the  troubled  book  of  what  we  have  done  and  yet  may  do.    An  introcosm  that  is  more  myself  than  anything  I  can  find  in  a  mirror.   This  consciousness  that  is  myself  of  selves,   that   is   everything,   and  yet   nothing  at  all一 

what is it? 
And where did it  come  from? 
And  why? 

Few  questions  have  endured  longer  or  traversed  a  more  perplexing  history  than   this,   the   problem   of   consciousness   and   its   place  in  nature.   Despite  centuries  of  pondering  and  experiment,  of  trying  to  get  together  two  supposed  entities  called  mind  and  matter  in  one  age,  subject  and  object  in  another,  or  soul  and  body  in  still  others,  despite  endless  discoursing  on  the  streams,  states,  or  contents  of  consciousness,   of  distinguishing  terms  like   intuitions,   sense  data,  the  given,   raw   feels,  the   sensa,   presentations   and representations,   the   sensations,   images,   and   affections   of   structuralist   introspections,   the   evidential   data   of   the   scientific   positivist,  phenomenological  fields,  the  apparitions  of  Hobbes,  the  phenomena  of  Kant,  the  appearances  of  the  idealist,  the  elements  of  Mach,  the  phanera  of  Peirce,  or  the  category  errors  of Ryle,  in spite  of  all  of  these,  the  problem  of  consciousness  is  still  with  us.  Something about it keeps returning,  not taking a solution.

[Luna Bliss]

19 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

20 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

And yet, despite the left hemisphere’s inferior grasp of reality, why is it increasingly taking precedence in the modern world,

The right hemisphere might be the source of supernatural ideas that latch onto concepts such as sacrifice, ritual slaughter, might is right.... I'm not sure that left-hemisphere dominance is quite so disastrous as it's being made out to be.

I don't think the author of The Master And His Emissary, McGilchrist, is saying there is no use for the conscious mind and its properties (logic, reason) which might be properly applied to change the examples you cited (like sacrifice and ritual slaughter). The problem is when you apply these properties to the wrong facet of existence where the 'right' brain with its more holistic comprehension should predominate, or when one utilizes 'left' brain properties excessively and so a kind of imbalance is created with detrimental effects.

BTW, the earlier video I posted of his was not the best one I've seen. He has quite a few videos on YouTube, and though quite long I'm gleaning more from the following one (basically I'm trying to avoid buying his most famous book and looking forward to buying a more recent one due to come out in the next couple of months).

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Theresa Tennyson]

19 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

The right hemisphere might be the source of supernatural ideas that latch onto concepts such as sacrifice, ritual slaughter, might is right.... I'm not sure that left-hemisphere dominance is quite so disastrous as it's being made out to be.

I would say that all of those things were products of a conscious and reasoned thought process at the time they came into being.

If you, upon observation, hypothesize that the natural world is behaving as though it had a consciousness similar to that of your species, the logical thing to do would be to treat it as a member of your species. If others of your species can be mollified through food gifts, it would be irrational to not attempt to treat the natural world similarly.

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Did you psychically tune-in to my desktop? 

The smart-Alec answer is either to hum Thomas Dolby "My brain is like a sieve" or else quote Charles Fort - "It steam-engines when it comes steam-engine time".

The best answer though is that that both Jaynes and McGilchrist are the two best-known exponents of this dual-hemisphere approach and anybody expressing an interest in the concept is going to have at least one of their works to hand.

Some of what they say has already been said by Carl Jung without specific references to the physical components of the brain, though. what the right side excels at is not easy to put into words other than "Those who can, do; those who cant, talk"'. A nicer way of putting it is to remind yourself that pictures have meanings that you get before you then start describing those meanings or your reactions to the picture. The right side sees feels, does, the left side takes a while to catch up and sometimes is too late to prevent a hasty action, such as burning the witch because she was lighter than a duck.

The real ought-to-read book that actually gets us back on thread topic (*) is William H Calvin's "How Brains Think" where he draws on evolutionary theory to hypothesise how a problem is farmed out to many different areas of the brain and a distinct form of parallel-processing takes place at the end of which  the most successful idea wins. This process, he claims, occurs especially in the process of formulating ballistic movements which are in the realm of "unconscious" as far as most people are concerned, in that you cannot think step by step how you are going to return the ball streaking over the net at you in a tennis match, you get to where it is and swing.

What we call consciousness is actually an intermittent process where we get our breath and summarise what's been happening in the past 20 milliseconds, but the real stuff is going on all the time. (20 milliseconds or thereabouts is the minimum time observed in meetings where people start to alter posture to indicate whether they are going to agree or disagree with what they are currently listening to).

 

(*) I must stop this new tendency of mine to un-swerve topics otherwise I'm never going to get my collection of warning badges started, and then my only recourse will be to adopt a socialist approach and start redistributing the unfair wealth of people like that Deakins fellow. But don't worry, I'm still in the better-dead-than-red camp for the moment.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Profaitchikenz Haiku

[Madelaine McMasters]

10 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

The real ought-to-read book that actually gets us back on thread topic (*) is William H Calvin's "How Brains Think" where he draws on evolutionary theory to hypothesise how a problem is farmed out to many different areas of the brain and a distinct form of parallel-processing takes place at the end of which  the most successful idea wins. This process, he claims, occurs especially in the process of formulating ballistic movements which are in the realm of "unconscious" as far as most people are concerned, in that you cannot think step by step how you are going to return the ball streaking over the net at you in a tennis match, you get to where it is and swing.

I've added "How Brains Think" to my reading list and wonder if it might replace David Eagleman's "Incognito: The Hidden Lives of the Brain" on my bookshelf. That book starts out well, describing examples of those myriad subconscious parallel processes at work in our brains. In the last third, Eagleman might overwork his argument for social engineering and overhaul of the justice system to accommodate our lack of free will.

Also on my bookshelf is Daniel Kahneman's wonderful "Thinking Fast and Slow" (recommended to me by Pamela Galli). Next to my father, I don't think I've encountered anything that could make me doubt my own thinking so. NPR's podcast/radio show "Hidden Brain", hosted by Shankar Vedanten (I'm such a fangirl) is inspired by Kahneman's work. NPR has a show for the other side of the brain too, Krista Tippet's (also a fangirl) "On Being".

Regarding ballistic movements, it might have been in "The Physics of Baseball" where I read that pitches don't curve as much as batters perceive. By controlling how the hand is unwrapped from the ball at the moment of release, the pitcher can mislead the batter's perception of the ball's trajectory. At 90ft, it's difficult to discern the true center of mass of the ball, which is partially obscured by the pitcher's hand. If the pitcher can expose the white of the ball in a way that causes the "visual" center of mass to move counter to the actual center of mass, the very beginnings of the batter's ballistic trajectory prediction will be wrong. At 130+fps, the batter hasn't got a lot of time to correct for that error. When he misses the pitch, he explains away the discrepancy by claiming the ball's trajectory changed during flight in ways that physics (spin) won't fully allow.

Since reading that, I've wondered if dark skinned pitchers are statistically distinguishable from light skinned, due to increased contrast between the ball and skin, and if dirtying up the ball might not make it actually easier to hit, providing the dirt doesn't have some other effect we can't tease apart.

So much to think about, so little conscious brain to do it with.

[Arielle Popstar]

41 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

(*) I must stop this new tendency of mine to un-swerve topics otherwise I'm never going to get my collection of warning badges started, and then my only recourse will be to adopt a socialist approach and start redistributing the unfair wealth of people like that Deakins fellow. But don't worry, I'm still in the better-dead-than-red camp for the moment.

Ha ha I was thinking this morning how topic swerving seemed to be the domain for blue, right brain dominant, "feelers".  Between this and the Covid thread it was striking me how the differing personality types were leading to breakdowns in communication based on the principles of The Art of Speed Reading People. Makes me wonder if Reds are more the Thinkers and Blues more the Feelers leading to neither side being able to understand where the other is coming from. No doubt that plays into whether the  left or right brain is predominant in any particular individual.

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I would say that all of those things were products of a conscious and reasoned thought process at the time they came into being.

If you, upon observation, hypothesize that the natural world is behaving as though it had a consciousness similar to that of your species, the logical thing to do would be to treat it as a member of your species. If others of your species can be mollified through food gifts, it would be irrational to not attempt to treat the natural world similarly.

This reminds of the imbalance of the mollification. The monsters who lived on the far side of the little door at the bottom of my childhood bedroom wall apparently needed Snickers bars for appeasement. Before going to bed, I'd carefully place one on the little porch. In the morning, I'd be rewarded with a ball of lint, a rusty nail or a tiny bone.

I was able to reconstruct a few small mammals from the bones I found on the porch, so maybe it was a fair trade after all?

Edited April 4, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

When he misses the pitch, he explains away the discrepancy by claiming the ball's trajectory changed during flight

He might in fact have seen that, if the ball didn't seem to follow his initial expectations and the brain recalculated where it was actually going. Many things happen so quickly that we don't perceive them directly but instead undergo this periodic recapitulation of what's just happened. This and a few other oddities are what I think lead Daniel Dennett to come up with "Conscious is an illusion". Although this statement is a typical author's way of grabbing your attention in the hope you'll buy their book, there is some merit to the idea, provided you dismiss the pejorative associations that illusion tends to give.

Try instead "consciousness is an integration of moments" using integration in the true mathematical manner, accepting that "continual consciousness" is therefore an illusion. Or, as I prefer to do, don't use the term illusion but instead substitute "concept". "Money" is a concept at root, a very real one. So too is time. So too is evolution. But they aren't real, even though they can be used, abused and discussed.

If you drop "survival of the fittest" and instead think of evolution in terms of "successful transmission of information", things make more sense, at least to me. The ones that died out weren't unfit, they just weren't as good at spreading their gospel.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Profaitchikenz Haiku

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

He might in fact have seen that, if the ball didn't seem to follow his initial expectations and the brain recalculated where it was actually going.

Well, that is what happens. But, the initial conditions were misleading, causing a significant error in the initial trajectory prediction. With each passing millisecond, there's one less millisecond to make course corrections. The ball's path is only ballistic once it leaves the pitcher's hand. If the brain starts a ballistic analysis that includes two milliseconds of non-ballistic deception, that's getting off to a pretty crappy start.

8 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

If you drop "survival of the fittest" and instead think of evolution in terms of "successful transmission of information", things make more sense, at least to me. The ones that dies out weren't unfit, they just weren't as good at spreading their gospel.

Viruses of the Mind?

I hold a (likely incorrect) belief that I carry a little bit of immunity.

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

8 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The ball's path is only ballistic once it leaves the pitcher's hand.

But the throwing motion is also ballistic, in that the muscle sequences are in effect already set up, there is no conscious activity involved once the arm starts to move. Admittedly there can be intervention such as a boxer pulling a punch, but in general once somebody starts to throw something, it's pretty much an atomic sequence. A really sharp-eyed batter might actually get more clues as to the ball's likely path from observing the muscular precursor to the flight than from the high-speed passage of the ball.

[Madelaine McMasters]

50 minutes ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

But the throwing motion is also ballistic, in that the muscle sequences are in effect already set up, there is no conscious activity involved once the arm starts to move. Admittedly there can be intervention such as a boxer pulling a punch, but in general once somebody starts to throw something, it's pretty much an atomic sequence. A really sharp-eyed batter might actually get more clues as to the ball's likely path from observing the muscular precursor to the flight than from the high-speed passage of the ball.

I think all that was in the analysis I read. It was the unwinding of the fingers from the ball, which happens very quickly, that can be highly non-linear and therefore hard to analyze/predict. IIRC, you can accelerate your fingertips faster than any other part of your body, except your eyelids.

ETA: With high speed video cameras and computer vision systems readily available, you'd think this would be ripe for YouTube. More to add to my watch list.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters

[FairreLilette]

On 4/2/2021 at 7:45 AM, Luna Bliss said:

It's amazing how our minds operate, dancing back and forth between a more conscious and subconscious awareness. Most studies point to conscious awareness as being the tip of the iceberg with much more going on at subconscious or unconscious levels than we know.

When creating optimally I always feel as if my subconscious mind has taken over, and have a sense that it's not me doing the creating but is instead coming from 'someplace else'.  Unfortunately it's not easy to relinquish control and let the deeper parts of myself take over, but when I do the result is so much better.

I was thinking about what you said here and about our mind dancing back and forth between a more conscious and subconscious awareness and especially in regards to creativity.  I don't know if I have ever experienced what you are talking about while creating as I just create and don't really think of why or what's going on with the process of it all.  

However, I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about regarding my "drug-induced" prescription pain killer dreams.  What I found, if, let's say both the ego and super-ego part of my brain were deadened from these drugs, then what I found in my id was utter blather.  And, it was.  I remember now even being agitated at these dreams and waking up with an "oh how ridiculous" thought on my mind towards these dreams - because they were - complete and utter nonsense that I was getting agitated and like Ceka mentioned I just didn't want to be there anymore and I felt the same way but a bit agitated as well.  The agitation really made me want to wake up and get out of bed and start my day.  

But, what I'm clarifying here is your experience with your subconscious is not with a deadened ego and super-ego like those who might experience due to a drug.  So, your experience is completely different because the ego and super-ego are still there to process stuff.  

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

On 4/2/2021 at 9:45 AM, Luna Bliss said:

It's amazing how our minds operate, dancing back and forth between a more conscious and subconscious awareness. Most studies point to conscious awareness as being the tip of the iceberg with much more going on at subconscious or unconscious levels than we know.

When creating optimally I always feel as if my subconscious mind has taken over, and have a sense that it's not me doing the creating but is instead coming from 'someplace else'.  Unfortunately it's not easy to relinquish control and let the deeper parts of myself take over, but when I do the result is so much better.

Expand  Expand  

I was thinking about what you said here and about our mind dancing back and forth between a more conscious and subconscious awareness and especially in regards to creativity.  I don't know if I have ever experienced what you are talking about while creating as I just create and don't really think of why or what's going on with the process of it all.  

However, I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about regarding my "drug-induced" prescription pain killer dreams.  What I found, if, let's say both the ego and super-ego part of my brain were deadened from these drugs, then what I found in my id was utter blather.  And, it was.  I remember now even being agitated at these dreams and waking up with an "oh how ridiculous" thought on my mind towards these dreams - because they were - complete and utter nonsense that I was getting agitated and like Ceka mentioned I just didn't want to be there anymore and I felt the same way but a bit agitated as well.  The agitation really made me want to wake up and get out of bed and start my day.  

But, what I'm clarifying here is your experience with your subconscious is not with a deadened ego and super-ego like those who might experience due to a drug.  So, your experience is completely different because the ego and super-ego are still there to process stuff.  

Yeah some drugs damage vital processes in the brain and so nothing would be enhanced.  I think they damage what's known as 'executive function', but don't quote me on that:

http://www.ldonline.org/article/29122/

Certain psychoactive drugs are a different matter however, and have the potential to affect consciousness in beneficial ways. They're very intense though, and for myself I choose mediation to get rid of the old 'tracks' or ruts of the mind...brain patterns that have outlived their usefulness, acquired through conditioning and/or experience.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

The dance between the conscious and unconscious brain as it deals with life experiences is indeed fascinating, and I'm interested in why our brains started dancing in a way that is causing the 6th great extinction on planet earth, culminating in humankind's death as well.

If we know what went wrong perhaps we can bring our brains back in balance so that we can live in harmony with earth's processes instead of destroying it and ourselves along the way. Or are we just like any other species that eventually goes instinct and no matter that we have these big brains as there's not much we can do about it?

I'm thinking some sort of bad mutation occurred that made humans particularly lethal, both to themselves and the environment. Perhaps a cultural mutation, as culture and biology are inextricably intertwined according to recent studies.

I'm betting it's the 'left' brain run amuck, dissecting reality to the point where many humans believe they are actually separate from the earth and can completely control it (a little too much fun with all those Scientific experiments can go to one's head, as the transhumanists exemplify in spades).
If you feel separate from something you are less inclined to care for it or understand what it needs, and tend to treat it as a 'thing' to exploit. As wise people have said, we forgot we belonged to the earth and thought the earth belonged to us.
Forget the problems with Religion -- Richard Dawkins and his ilk are the biggest and most destructive viral memes to ever infect the planet.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

NPR has a show for the other side of the brain too, Krista Tippet's (also a fangirl) "On Being".

Also a good show.