|
Hi Dick,
>>> I think this is the crux of our communication problem. You see it as my not accepting your definition (which, by the way, I do understand) when, in actual fact, the problem is your refusal to work with my definition. In my presentation, what you think the meaning of "subconscious" and "conscious" should be is totally beside the point. If you refuse to work with my definitions, then you will have to give me a set of letters I can use, as a code, to represent the division I want to talk about. Until we are talking about the same thing the discussion is totally worthless.>By my definition, my conscious mind is me! I know exactly what I am thinking in every detail. What you must recognize is that it is beyond my ability to think of more then three concepts or two relationships at a "time". This being the case, I depend very strongly on my subconscious to handle the logistics of any analysis. What I trust is my subconscious. I trust my subconscious when it comes to mathematics for a very simple reason: I can understand mathematics from the perspective of three concepts and two relations. And yes, my subconscious has lied about that too but he gets caught because the concepts and relationships are very well defined. And my subconscious has passed me the concept of mathematicians who check for such errors. Not that they are always right either but at least when "I" examine the concepts and relations "I" understand what the problem is.>>In order to help you conceive of my mental picture of myself, think of a blind and bedridden scientist imprisoned in a room with no exits. Though "I" am imprisoned, I have a brilliant but lazy graduate student who will answer any question I ask. The problem is that he is not really concerned with being right, all he is concerned with is having a good time and not getting caught with a bogus answer: he thinks he knows everything but hasn't really thought the issues out. He has an answer for every question I ask but he answers all my questions in a manner which only make sense if you presume he is right. The problem is that I have already proved that he doesn't always tell me the truth (I have caught him with inconsistent answers). On the other hand, he is so much more brilliant than I that I cannot hope to find a correct answer without his help.>>H: "my conscious mind that says that I won't do it" D: You have reverted to your definition of conscious and subconscious here, you are not using my definition!>>H: The models of science are mainly justified on empirical success. D: You are speaking of the models based on our basic subconscious model of reality. That model itself has never been examined or explained!>I think you take a defeatist position: "then our conscious minds are fooled to the extent as to make all inquiry into the world a meaningless endeavor". Our subconscious has solved the problem quite satisfactorily; I think that implies the problem is solvable! If the problem can be solved, isn't it more rational to work out a solution than to just accept what we know to be untrustworthy?>>No, I do not propose any method of interpreting the meaning of A.B.C. What I am saying is that it makes no difference what the meaning of A.B.C. is, my model of the information is valid anyway.>H: only true within the realm of mathematics. D: No, only true within the realm of my model! The truth of mathematics is part of my model!(This is where I say they need to do some work! This problem has never been analytically attacked. They have assumed their mental model of reality is correct and refuse to even discuss the possibility of error.) |
