Our 'Subconscious' is our 'real consciousness'

Stevie Argyl

Jedi Master
Gurdjieff stated that our 'subconscious' is our 'real consciousness in Beelzebubs Tales to His Grandson.

Chapter: The arousing of thought.
P24
I wish to bring to the knowledge of what
is called your “pure waking consciousness” the fact that in the
writings following this chapter of warning I shall expound my
thoughts intentionally in such sequence and with such “logical
confrontation,” that the essence of certain real notions may of
themselves automatically, so to say, go from this “waking consciousness”—
which most people in their ignorance mistake for
the real consciousness, but which I affirm and experimentally
prove is the fictitious one—into what you call the subconscious,
which ought to be in my opinion the real human consciousness,
and there by themselves mechanically bring about that transformation
which should in general proceed in the entirety of a
man and give him, from his own conscious mentation, the results
he ought to have, which are proper to man and not merely
to single- or double-brained animals.
I decided to do this without fail so that this initial chapter of
mine, predetermined as I have already said to awaken your consciousness,
should fully justify its purpose, and reaching not only
your, in my opinion, as yet only fictitious “consciousness,” but also
your real consciousness, that is to say, what you call your subconscious,
might, for the first time, compel you to reflect actively.
END

Recent brain studies have updated Ben Libets findings on 'readiness potentials' and have shown that some decisions are made subconsciously up to 7 seconds, i repeat, SEVEN seconds before we consciously become aware of them. link http://www.physorg.com/news127395619.html

brainregout.jpg


Brain regions (shown in green) from which the outcome of a participant’s decision can be predicted before it is made. The top shows an enlarged 3D view of a pattern of brain activity in one informative brain region. Computer-based pattern classifiers can be trained to recognize which of these micropatterns typically occur just before either left or right decisions. These classifiers can then be used to predict the outcome of a decision up to 7 seconds before a person thinks he is consciously making the decision. Image: John-Dylan Haynes

Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charite University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin.

The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings." (Nature Neuroscience, April 13th 2008)

In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before the person felt the decision was made.

The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look at what happens when the decision is made, but not atwhat happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a astonishing finding.

This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose. The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.

"Most researchers investigate what happens when people have to decide immediately, typically as a rapid response to an event in our environment. Here we were focusing on the more interesting decisions that are made in a more natural, self-paced manner", Haynes explains.

More than 20 years ago the American brain scientist Benjamin Libet found a brain signal, the so-called "readiness-potential" that occurred a fraction of a second before a conscious decision. Libet's experiments were highly controversial and sparked a huge debate. Many scientists argued that if our decisions are prepared unconsciously by the brain, then our feeling of "free will" must be an illusion. In this view, it is the brain that makes the decision, not a person's conscious mind. Libet's experiments were particularly controversial because he found only a brief time delay between brain activity and the conscious decision.

In contrast, Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts even up to 7 seconds ahead of time how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: "Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed."

Citation: Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes, Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience April 13th, 2008.

Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

The above piece tells us that some (I know not the quantity) decisions we make and attribute to conscious choice have already been made before we are consciously aware of them.
To me 'habit' is useful for a human being as part of learning. For Example I don't want to have to think about how I should open every door I come to, or re-learn how fast to bring the clutch up in a car to prevent crunching the gears. But 7 seconds - I just looked at a watch for seven seconds, its a long time.
 
Stevie Argyll said:
The above piece tells us that some (I know not the quantity) decisions we make and attribute to conscious choice have already been made before we are consciously aware of them.
To me 'habit' is useful for a human being as part of learning. For Example I don't want to have to think about how I should open every door I come to, or re-learn how fast to bring the clutch up in a car to prevent crunching the gears. But 7 seconds - I just looked at a watch for seven seconds, its a long time.

Yes, the reflexes are instinctive and quicker; then we get onto feelings which are bit slower and thoughts which are slower still. There is a scale that G. came up with but I can't find it, impressions were at 1/10,000th of a second from memory. I'm unable to find the relative time of the feelings and thoughts. Nevertheless, I've seen the differences between the different centres when the emotions go off by themselves and the mind catches up a few seconds later......... wondering how I found myself there so quickly!

I'll often pause to take time to think. People sometimes wonder why I've gone quiet, I'll tell them , "I'm thinking about it.". It's interesting that society seems to be hell-bent on making things go faster and quicker and is going through some sort of de-evolution. My feeling are that things should be going slower, taking time to think rather than react.

Actually, it makes a good case for smoking. It gives one the opportunity to pause and reflect and slow down. :cool2:
 
The Feeling Center and the Motor Instinctive Center have become subconscious as man’s sense of self has become located in the Abstract or Thinking Center. The Thinking Center dominates the “chimeric” quality of modern man. The “horror of the situation” isn’t that computers are becoming human, but that humans have become computers. We are caricatures of our potential being, with the self identified with the web of abstract associations of logic and memory. The wise acres are busy measuring and clapping when they discover what has always been integral to the Fourth Way understanding of man the machine. Our real “I” sank beneath the sea in the allegory of the Tales.

Gurdjieff said:
I wish to bring to the knowledge of what
is called your “pure waking consciousness” the fact that in the
writings following this chapter of warning I shall expound my
thoughts intentionally in such sequence and with such “logical
confrontation,” that the essence of certain real notions may of
themselves automatically, so to say, go from this “waking consciousness”—
which most people in their ignorance mistake for
the real consciousness, but which I affirm and experimentally
prove is the fictitious one—into what you call the subconscious,
which ought to be in my opinion the real human consciousness,
and there by themselves mechanically bring about that transformation
which should in general proceed in the entirety of a
man and give him, from his own conscious mentation, the results
he ought to have, which are proper to man and not merely
to single- or double-brained animals.
I decided to do this without fail so that this initial chapter of
mine, predetermined as I have already said to awaken your consciousness,
should fully justify its purpose, and reaching not only
your, in my opinion, as yet only fictitious “consciousness,” but also
your real consciousness, that is to say, what you call your subconscious,
might, for the first time, compel you to reflect actively.

What is the “logical confrontation” of which Gurdjieff speaks? Could it be the confrontation of the Thinking Centered “I” with the subconscious existence of the Motor Instinctive and Feeling Center awareness? How are they to communicate? Isn’t this the objective of the Work? We work so that estrangement of our “three brains” is ended and we become One.

Johnno said:
I'll often pause to take time to think. People sometimes wonder why I've gone quiet, I'll tell them , "I'm thinking about it.". It's interesting that society seems to be hell-bent on making things go faster and quicker and is going through some sort of de-evolution. My feeling are that things should be going slower, taking time to think rather than react.

Johnno, thanks for the paragraph illustrating the different functions and speeds of the Thinking Center and the Feeling Center and how you engage both in life. We pause to give attention to thinking, so thinking can catch up to our feeling. You feel and then take time to think. I wish to remember this potential to think and feel what I perceive simultaneously. This is the result of Work. It is easier and expected for man or woman to react emotionally alone or react logically alone as if we live our lives by either instinct or Game Theory. The Work is to reconcile how we feel with how we think, so that our subconscious might become conscious. Is this a small part what it means to be awake?
 
It seems that many phenomena of entirely different orders are grouped into the basket of "subconscious". G talks about this in ISOTM
[quote author=ISOTM]
Our principal error is that we think we have one mind. We call the functions of this mind 'conscious'; everything that does not enter this mind we call 'unconscious' or 'subconscious.' This is our chief error. Of the conscious and the unconscious we will speak later. At this moment I want to explain to you that the activity of the human machine, that is, of the physical body, is controlled, not by one, but by several minds, entirely independent of each other, having separate functions and separate spheres in which they manifest themselves.
[/quote]

Mouravieff talks about the subconscious in Gnosis Book1, Pg 13-14. He defines 4 levels of consciousness : Absolute Consciousness, Consciousness of Real I, waking consciousness and subconsciousness. The last 2 states of consciousness are present in "sleeping" man. Regarding subconsciousness, Mouravieff says:
[quote author=Gnosis Bk 1]
Subconsciousness is the twilight consciousness of the body. Its force does not depend on the cultural level of the individual. .............
The domain of subconsciousness is vast and very little about it has been studied. We sometimes treat it as if everything that does not enter waking consciousness is in the subconscious. We not only attribute the reflexes and the general functions of instinctive life to it, which is correct, but also the lightning ideas which come from higher spheres and which we call by vague terms such as : intuition, sixth sense etc., which is erroneous.
[/quote]

What is subconsciousness really? When G said that the "subconscious is the real human consciousness" - was he treating the subconscious as a collection of those processes (could be related to any of the centers) of which we are not aware but can be aware with the practice of self-remembering? Also there must be a purpose behind becoming aware of these processes. For example, the body (instinctive center) is well capable of taking care of itself under normal circumstances and becoming consciously aware of all the complex processes involved in the functioning of the body, even if it were possible, would seem unnecessary. Similarly as Stevie Argyll mentioned, habits formed by the process of moving center learning - like driving a car, a bicycle etc - does not need the light of conscious awareness to illuminate it. On the other hand, it is very important to become aware of the automatic patterns of reactive behavior, buffers and so on.
The goal of the beginning stages of Work is to equilibrate the lower centers - to make sure each center does its job and does not interfere with the job of others. The specific context determines which center needs to take center-stage. For Man 3 ( which I believe go2 was referring to when writing that the feeling and motor-instinctive centers are subconscious in him), Man2 and Man1 the specific nature of the Work is likely to be different. It would seem that the subconscious processes, which would be beneficial to be aware of in the context of the Work aim, would be different in each type of man (1,2 and 3). (A big) OSIT.

[quote author=Johnno]
There is a scale that G. came up with but I can't find it, impressions were at 1/10,000th of a second from memory. I'm unable to find the relative time of the feelings and thoughts.
[/quote]

Were you referring to this?
[quote author=ISOTM pp 193-195]
"The centers of the human machine work with different 'hydrogens.' This constitutes their chief difference. The center working with a coarser, heavier, denser 'hydrogen' works the slower. The center working with light, more mobile 'hydrogen' works the quicker.
The thinking or intellectual center is the slowest of all the three centers we have examined up to now. It works with 'hydrogen' 48.
"The moving center works with 'hydrogen' 24. 'Hydrogen' 24 is many times quicker and more mobile than 'hydrogen' 48. The intellectual center is never able to follow the work of the moving center. We are unable to follow either our own movements or other people's movements unless they are artificially slowed down. Still less are we able to follow the work of the inner, the instinctive functions of our organism, the work of the instinctive mind which constitutes, as it were, one side of the moving center.
"The emotional center can work with 'hydrogen' 12. In reality, however, it very seldom works with this fine 'hydrogen.' And in the majority of cases its work differs little in intensity and speed from the work of the moving center or the instinctive center.
..............................
As has been said earlier, there are two higher centers:
"The higher emotional center, working with hydrogen 12, and
"The higher thinking center, working with hydrogen 6.
"If we consider the work of the human machine from the point of view of the 'hydrogens' which work the centers, we shall see why the higher centers cannot be connected with the lower ones.
"The intellectual center works with hydrogen 48; the moving center with hydrogen 24.
"If the emotional center were to work with hydrogen 12, its work would be connected with the work of the higher emotional center. In those cases where the work of the emotional center reaches the intensity and speed of existence which is given by hydrogen 12, a temporary connection with the higher emotional center takes place and man experiences new emotions, new impressions hitherto entirely unknown to him, for the description of which he has neither words nor expressions. But in ordinary conditions the difference between the speed of our usual emotions and the speed of the higher emotional center is so great that no connection can take place and we fail to hear within us the voices which are speaking and calling to us from the higher emotional center.
[/quote]
Ouspensky tried to quantify the speed difference of the different centers using his theory of time in different cosmoses. He used the thinking center speed as the unit since it works the slowest.
[quote author=ISTOM pg 339]
G. spoke many times about the enormous difference in the speed of the different centers. The reasoning which I have cited above in regard to the speed of the inner work of the organism led me to the thought that this speed belongs to the instinctive center. With this as a basis I tried to proceed from the thinking center, taking as the unit of its work, for example, the time necessary for one full apperception, that is, for the reception of an outside impression, the classification and definition of this impression—and for the responding reaction. Then if the centers actually stand to one another in the relation of cosmoses, in exactly the same amount of time through the instinctive center there could pass 30,000 apperceptions, through the higher emotional and in the sex centers 30, 0002 apperceptions and through the higher thinking 30,0003 apperceptions.
[/quote]
Ouspensky also says
[quote author=ISOTM]
Several times I tried to speak to G. about my "table of time in different cosmoses," but he dismissed all theoretical conversations.
[/quote]
 
If you read "Prehistory of the Mind" and put it together with Martha Stout's "The Myth of Sanity", you will see how right Gurdjieff was. Freud was an evil psychopath and his theories of the mind and subconscious have poisoned a couple generations of the Western world.
 
Johnno said:
Stevie Argyll said:
The above piece tells us that some (I know not the quantity) decisions we make and attribute to conscious choice have already been made before we are consciously aware of them.
To me 'habit' is useful for a human being as part of learning. For Example I don't want to have to think about how I should open every door I come to, or re-learn how fast to bring the clutch up in a car to prevent crunching the gears. But 7 seconds - I just looked at a watch for seven seconds, its a long time.

Yes, the reflexes are instinctive and quicker; then we get onto feelings which are bit slower and thoughts which are slower still. There is a scale that G. came up with but I can't find it, impressions were at 1/10,000th of a second from memory. I'm unable to find the relative time of the feelings and thoughts. Nevertheless, I've seen the differences between the different centres when the emotions go off by themselves and the mind catches up a few seconds later......... wondering how I found myself there so quickly!

I'll often pause to take time to think. People sometimes wonder why I've gone quiet, I'll tell them , "I'm thinking about it.". It's interesting that society seems to be hell-bent on making things go faster and quicker and is going through some sort of de-evolution. My feeling are that things should be going slower, taking time to think rather than react.

Actually, it makes a good case for smoking. It gives one the opportunity to pause and reflect and slow down. :cool2:

Johnno

The study was not a study of reflex actions nor emotional actions but rather a study of what people call thinking and choosing.

If I recall correctly . Ben Libets early experiments people were asked to choose to lift one hand or another. Libet could tell by the 'readiness potential' whend they had 'made the decision' a full .5 seconds before they were aware of having a choice.
So it could be said that the choice was made at a subsconscious level, then the person became aware of the choice and reported making it.
 
I personally don't get why the assumption that subconscious thinking somehow doesn't involve free will

Is it possible that we are aware of our subconscious activities (at least subconsciously) and therefore participate in our decisions?

I'd hate to think how some might react if it were discovered that a limb shows sign of movement before the conscious has decided to move it.

The other thought I had was that the subconscious advises, by providing both a range of decision possibilities and a recommendation for the best decision.

This also makes me wonder if the "be here now", living in the moment approach actually helps the conscious become aware of the subtle communications between the subconscious as well as the emotional centres, ultimately helping reconnect the three brains into one.

One thing for sure, G was right when he said the subconscious was barely understood and studied.

Thanks for bring this up.

Gonzo
 
Gonzo
I'd hate to think how some might react if it were discovered that a limb shows sign of movement before the conscious has decided to move it.

That has already been proven to be the case.

I put my hand on a very hot stove, I feel the searing heat, I pull my hand away - conclusion I realised the stove was very hot and moved to prevent burning.

Now the conclusion has been proven to be an afterthought, what happens is, ,my hand is on a hot stove, heat is sensed, a reflex arc is stimulated to move the arm, the action is then picked up by the conscious mind and a story is invented to explain what happened.
This is similar to what happens in studies in hypnosis, when a suggestion to carry out an action after a post hypnotic cue is given.

Eg
Subject is hypnotised, told that when the agent delivers a cue, example of a cue could be the agent touching their tie to straighten it or coughing 3 times , anyway they are told that on receipt of the cue that the subject will take of my shoe, look inside then put it back on. The subject is told they will have no recollection of suggestion.
so subject is brought to waking, cue is delivered, subject takes shoe off , looks inside, puts it back on. All as suggested.

Now ask the subject why the took their shoe off, and this is where the mind fills in the gaps.
Just to take a shoe of and look inside it would not be an action consistent with the subjects 'view of themself' therefore they concoct a story to explain. 'Oh, I thought I felt a stone in my shoe' or 'Oh, I thought a pin was sticking through thr sole' or something of that ilk.
 
Gonzo said:
This also makes me wonder if the "be here now", living in the moment approach actually helps the conscious become aware of the subtle communications between the subconscious as well as the emotional centres, ultimately helping reconnect the three brains into one.


Gonzo

I read somewhere that G criticised Ouspensky for 'thinking too much'. One of the early exercises he gives in BTs is an in the moment exrecise. He was also critical of those who did not taste their food at meals and is reported in one of the books (the Rope perhaps) to have mentioned after a picnic that 'no one took in the scenery'
 
Go2
What is the “logical confrontation” of which Gurdjieff speaks? Could it be the confrontation of the Thinking Centered “I” with the subconscious existence of the Motor Instinctive and Feeling Center awareness? How are they to communicate? Isn’t this the objective of the Work? We work so that estrangement of our “three brains” is ended and we become One.

I think that is very well put.

In Ch40 Hasseins description of his perplexity as to how the 3 brained being of the planet Earth could have understood Heptaparaparshinokh suggests just this type of logical confrontation. It's like we gather our separated 'state dependant' memory deposits. We separate the fine from the course in the results of our perceptions. Separating those ideas/beliefs which we have taken on trust/faith or have accepted because they confirmed our existing beliefs / bolstered our fragile egos / gave is security in our affiliations etc and look inside ourselves and compare with our own mental/emotional/physical/ sensory experience and re-connect, re-evaluate, re-integate.
 
I think that scientists are making a mistake when linking the brain and brain functions with consciousness in their research. Not to mention "real consciousness".

I can understand that the brain is necessary physical processor for the body (hardware), and possibly is connected with the real consciousness, higher self, inner watcher or something like that, but I don't understand how can physical brain and its physical functions prove consciousness (as something that probably is beyond any physicality, and something that we probably can't comprehend in fully while in psychical body, just because of limitations of our physical processor, brain).

As I see facts from that resarch, that's just learned, mechanic behavior, necessary for body's survival in physical world. And what that has to do with "thinking and choosing"? Maybe more interesting research would be what people think what is "thinking" exactly.

I'm sure that the cats are even faster in their reaction to lift their left or right paw, even to think and chose between the mouse and the sparrow, and that also can be seen in some regions of their brain and brain activity. Does that mean that they have more or faster consciousness than humans do?

As I see it, thats just another research that "proves" that man is just a machine (be it true or not).

I'm not expert, just trying to think, so maybe I'm totally off here.
 
Laura said:
Freud was an evil psychopath and his theories of the mind and subconscious have poisoned a couple generations of the Western world.

I,m curious,can you give me some reference or links on this,personally for me Freud was destroying real psychology.
 
I think that scientists are making a mistake when linking the brain and brain functions with consciousness in their research. Not to mention "real consciousness".

This is my though too,I posted before this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

If someone didnt see it,watch it and you will see that they are making mistake linking the brain functions with "real consciousness",I get "feeling" that neuroscience will go in wrong direction in explaining consciousness.
 
daco said:
I think that scientists are making a mistake when linking the brain and brain functions with consciousness in their research. Not to mention "real consciousness".

This is my though too,I posted before this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

If someone didnt see it,watch it and you will see that they are making mistake linking the brain functions with "real consciousness",I get "feeling" that neuroscience will go in wrong direction in explaining consciousness.

I think that this supports rather than negates G's statement. The 'thing' to which we are attributing 'action,choice,decision', the thing which we are calling 'I' in I decided this or I decided that , didnt make the decision, rather it is an echo, a ripple in the pond and not the cause of the ripple.
 
daco said:
I think that scientists are making a mistake when linking the brain and brain functions with consciousness in their research. Not to mention "real consciousness".

This is my though too,I posted before this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

If someone didnt see it,watch it and you will see that they are making mistake linking the brain functions with "real consciousness",I get "feeling" that neuroscience will go in wrong direction in explaining consciousness.

I think that they are already way in the wrong direction (actually, I think that they don't know for any other direction, being machines themselves).

Here is Libet's experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs&feature=related


I think also that is supports Gurdjieff. Explains how machine does the "thinking".
 
Back
Top Bottom